HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice LM. Quddusi and Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal No.497 of 2004 Appellants Pururam Verma and another verSUS Smt‘ Sushma Bai Dhiwar and others Respondents /r, Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, counsel for the appellants. Shri Pawan Kesharwani, counsel for respondent No.1. None for other respondents. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22nd February, 2011) Per LM. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed by the owner and driver of the tractor and trolley challenging the award dated 8-4-2004 passed by the 15‘ Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.48/2003. 3. Brief facts of the case, according to the claimants, are that on the date of accident, i.e., 19-5-2003, at about 7:30 P.M., deceased Jaikumar Dhiwar was going from Village Bhainsa to Village Korasi on a bicycle cycling on his left side. When he reached near Bhainsakhar between the'Villages Bhainsa and Korasi,‘at that time, tractor bearing registration No.CG 04 ZG 6825 and trolley bearing registration No.CG O4 ZG 6826, coming from Village Korasi and @ 2 being driven by non-claimant No‘1 Mansingh Verma rashly and negligently, dashed the bicycle on its front, as a result of which, Jaikumar Dhiwar crushed under the wheels of the tractor and trolley and died on the spot. The incident was reported to the Police Station Kharora. The claimants, i.e., wife, son, two daughters and mother of the deceased Jaikumar Dhiwar preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.35,50,000/~. 4. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,84,096/- in favour of the claimants holding liability on the non—claimants to satisfy the award. 5. The award was made on 8—4-2004, but the criminal proceedings were concluded on 4-11—2004 acquitting the driver of the tractor and trolley. 6. Though we are conscious that the criminal case was decided on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and if the prosecution could not led relevant evidence or was not successful in proving the case, it cannot affect the findings given in the award, but, as stated in the written statement itself, filed on behalf of the driver and the owner of the tractor and trolley in the claim petition in question, it was the case of the driver and the owner that they had no concern with the accident and the accident did not take place with their tractor and trolley. We are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal shall conduct a thorough enquiry as provided under p 3 Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. The Claims Tribunal shall allow the parties to amend their pleadings, 'adduce further evidence, file documents or get the documents verified and the claim petition shall be decided thereafter on merits afresh without being influenced by the order passed in the criminal Case. 7. Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal for decision afresh, as directed above. The record of the Claims Tribunal shall be sent back without delay. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 29th March, 2011. There i a l shall be no order as to costs. . Sdl- ' 7% Sd/- n I.M.Quddusi l Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge T Judge i "