B~; 1 VI Y- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR lit'tei^n R!'s?fa.Ssi 5 .;' K's^S'^^S LA^'^? ^?..?^ M.A. (C) No. 2-^ Of2011 APPELLANT claiinant s\ ^' ..<^°^ ^>^^ ^•'"...^* .•••'' ^y^^ ^^0"^ ,<?•^ -'^ -•".^' /• RESPONDENTS Non-applicants ^ ^' fflUECOPfr «Lt.SINGR» fwjwxat» E.N.-'W*' 5mt. Khethin Bai, aged 46 years, W/o. late Jhadiram Sinha, Permanent R/o. Village Souri, Police Station Khamhariya, Post Karesai-a, Tahsil Saja, Disti-ict Burg (C.G.), presently at through Bhukhan Sinha, Mahant Talab, Krishna Nagar, Kota, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) Versus :l)/Rajesh Singhaniya, aged about 25 years, S/o. Ghanshyani Singhaniya, Occupation Business, R/o. Village Police Station Khamhariya, Post Khamhariya, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) :2)'The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kachahri Chowk, Jail^ Road, Raipur Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Policy No. year 10137/208 D.O.Code 5, Agent Code 3377 Office Code (I525?3> Period 27.12.07 to fr- ^6.12^299g) ^& . j.-^ .^oo ^ fir— b MISCELLANEOUS^PPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,^1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M_AJC| No. 278 of2011 Appellant Smt. Khethin Bai Versus Respondents Rajesh Singhaniya & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi &, Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri A. L. Singrol, Advocate for the appellant/claimant. Ms Sarina Khan, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri H. P. Aganval, Advocate for the respondent No. 2/The Orientai insurance Company Limited. 2. 3, 4. O^DER(Oral) ( Passed on this 9th day oi'November, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the impugneci award dated 7.11.2008 (Smt. Khethin B;-u Vii. Rajesh Singhania & another), passect by the Additional Motoi- Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur in CIaim Case No. 48/2008. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 2.3.2008 at about 11 a.m. deceased Jhadi Ram was going to Silhat.i by the motorcycie, bearing registration No. C.G. 04-C/3683. On the way, the non-applicant No.l, driving the vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. -07/4201 in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle from the opposite direction. In that accident Jhadi Ram received grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The claimant/dependent/wife of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 15,50,OOO/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribuual, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record dismissed the claim petition, holding that i.t is not proved that the claimant/appellant is lega! heir/dependent of the deceased. • / \ ^v/f^ ^ I <SJ>|!@?|S|!k SJ 'i\'^€/ -t-.^^sy- 5. As per the office report the appeal is barred by limitation of 682 days. The appellant has field I.A.No.l for condonaton of delay. Learned counsel appcaring for the respondents raised objection. 6. Having regard to the facts situation that the appellant is an illiterate lady belonging to the rural area, her claim has been dismissed as she could not bring any evidence before the Claims Tribunal about her relationship with the deceased and that there is no limitation in filing the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the delay of 682 days should be condoned. Further, we are of the view that the Courts should be libera'l in condoning the delay in such cases, especiaily in the cases of motor accident, where the entire claim is dismissed. Therefore, with an intention that the claimant should not be denied the just compensation, the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be and the same is accordingly condoned. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused . the lower Court record as well as thc findings given in t.he impugned award. 8. We have perused the copy of the identity card issued by the Election Commission of India on 19.8.1995 i.e. prior to the date of accident (2.3.2008), which is being used as identifical-ion proof under diflerent governmental schemes, wherein the name of the husband of the claimant Smt. Kothin Bai has been mentioned as wife of Jhadi Ram. The date of accident is 2.3.2008. Thus, the name of the deceased husband of the claimant has been mentioned before her name since 1995 and therefore there was no question of raising any doubt regarding the relationship of the appellant/wife and the deceased/husband. 9. The objection as raised by the respondents that the claima.nt was not residing with her husband and it was her admission before the Tribunal created a doubt, is not sustainable because in any case the appellant is in fact widow of the deceased. However, in the absence of any cogent proof the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition, as the identity card of the Eiection Commission of India was nol liled before the Claims Tribunal and this card has been field before this Court for the first time. 10. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the same should be considered by the Tribunal concerned and therefore Ihe matter is ^A.-:-:.-,• ^^1![ ;\.- ^l- VA^ Thakur 1 liable to be remitted back. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, the impugned award dated 7.11.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for decision afresh in view of the observations made herein above. 11. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file doeuments or get the documents verified etc., and thereafter decision shall be taken afresh, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months. 12. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 14th December, 2011 13. The LCR shall be sent back without further delay. Sd/- LM-Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge