IN THE HIGH COURT* OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS ^s^ ^ ^•'"_^ T!^"° '.^ ^' RESPONDENTS : Bivision B@sidl M.A.(C.) No..5^.^..../2010 .^0. ^ 31 Smt. DhirajrtBai @ Giija Bai @ Garima Dhurve, aged about 22 years, W/o Late Mukesh Kumar Dhruve, Caste Gond 2)^ Ashish Kumar Dhruve Aged about 8 months, Minor through legal guardian Mother Dhiraj Bai Late Mukesh Kumar Dhurve Mohan lal Dhruve Aged about 60 years, S/o Late Ram Charan Dhruve &jt^\^-*''<> Smt.TShi^' Kumari Bai Dhruve aged about 55 years, W/o Mohan Lal Dhruve, All are Resident of Pande para Balod, Post Balod, Thana TahsU Balod, District Durg (C.G.) 'Versus 1) Govind Ram Gond aged about 30 years, S/o Bhulau Ram Gond, R/o Village Thegakhurd, Police Station Dondi, P.S. & TahsU Balod, District Durg (C.G.) • ^2) (^avdeep Singh S/o Amarjeet Singh Broka, R/o Chikhlakasa DaUirajhara, Thana & TahsU Batod, District Durg (C.G.) ^Jl(cx.^5«^*^%«t,e^^^ K" .3,) The Oriental<^^)Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch ^^o. Office Kanithi Line Rajnandgsibn, Tahsil 8& District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Divisional Manager Divisional Office, Rajendra Park Chowk, Malviya Nagar Durg (C.G.) MEMO OF MISCELIAINEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTtQR VEHICLE ACT 1988 HIGH CQURT QF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. 360 of 2010 Appellants Smt. Dhiraja Bai & others Versus Respondents Govind Ram Gond & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 QF THEMQTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri I. S. P. Chandrasen, Advocate for the appellants. Despite service ofnotice none appears for the respondents No.l & 2. Ms Chitra Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 28th day of September,2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard, This appeal arises from the award dated 30.9.2009, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Balod, District - Durg in Claim Case No. 140/2008. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 30.11.2008 deceased Mukesh Dhruv was going from village Belodi to Balod on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. C.G. -7/L.G./8418. At the time when he reached near Umradah turning, the Truck, bearing registration No. C.G. 07-C/2594, being driven by the respondent No.l in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. The deceased received grievous injuries, he was taken to the hospital and during the course of treatment on 1.12.2008 Mukesh Dhurve died. The appellants/claimants being legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of total compensation of Rs. 6,45,200/- under various heads. By the impugned award the claim of the appellants has been rejected by the M.A.C.T. holding that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident was caused by the vehicle - Truck, bearing registration No. C.G. 07-C/2594. The police had seized the papers \ c^ of vehicle, bearing registration No. C.G. 07 ZC/2594, which was not involved in the accident. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record. In the written statement filed by Govind Ram Gond (nori-applicant No.l/driver), he has admitted that he was the driver of the vehicle - Truck No. C.G. 07-0/2594and the non-applicant No.2/owner, namely Ravdeep Singh was owner of that vehicle. He had denied only the fact that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving. However, he admitted that when the accident had taken place he was having the valid and effective driving licence. The non-applicant No.2/owner of the vehicle No. C.G. 07-C/2594, namely Ravdeep Singh has also in his written statement admitted the above position, which has been admitted by the non-applicant No.l, that he was the owner of the vehicle of which the non-applicant No.l was the driver and the Oriental Insurance Company was the insurer of the vehicle No. C.G. 07-C/2594. He has also admitted in the written statement that the vehicle by which the accident had taken place i.e. Truck No. C.G. 07-C/2594 the non-applicant No.3 is insurer, which is responsible for the payment of coinpensation. Since there was no denial about the fact that the accident had taken place from the vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07-C/2594, the finding of the Tribunal that no accident had taken place by the Truck C.G. 07-C/2594 is perverse. The Tribunal has also mentioned that since in the FJ.R. a number was mentioned as C.G. 07 ZC/2594, the claim petition should have been filed against the owner and driver of that vehicle. However, the fact was that later on the niimber of the vehicle was corrected. Besides this, the Tribunal should not have concern that the wrong number was mentioned in the F.I.R. and should have confined and appreciated the evidence and the pleadings available on record. The admissions made in the written statement should have been taken into consideration and the Tribunal should not have gone beyond that. fl^lls^i%jlj%ii|iIJ!%lfB^I y^^ f^-^^ 8. In view of the above, when the question of accident by the truck No. C.G. 07-C/2594 was not denied, we are of the opinion that it would bejust and proper to remand the matter. 9. In view of the above, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award dated 30.9.2009 and remit the matter to the M.A.C.T. concerned to consider and decide the claim petition afresh in the light of the observations made herein above, after restoring the claim petition and providing opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence, ifany. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to cosfs. 11. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Thakur