s l&^-' HIGHCOURTX)FCHHATTISGrARHATBILASPUR CORAM: AppeUant/ Claimants •^ Respondent/ Non-applicants t DIVISIONBENCH HQN'BLE MR. T.P. SHARMA 85 HON'BLE MR. N.K. AGARWAL, JJ M.A. N0. 445/2002 ^. 2. 3. 4. 5. Khediyabai Wd/o; Goverdhan Prasad, Sahu, aged about 33 years, Ku. Santoshi bai D/o Goverdhan Prasad Sahu, aged about 15 years, Noorkant S/o Goverdhan Prasad, Aged about 7 years. Pusram S/o Dhanau Ram Sahu, aged about 57 years, Hasmatbai W/o Pusram Sahu, aged about 55 years, Appellant No. 2 and 3 fhrough legal guardian mother Khediyabai. All are R/o village Suhela, Distt. Raipur. Hirmi P.S. V/s 1. Domarsingh S/o Ramasingh, R/o yillage and P.0. Daudekhurd, Tahsil and Distt. Raipur (G.G.). Balbindarsingh, Through : M/ s. Petrol Pump, Ringroad, Chhokaranala Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.). United India Insyrance Co. Ltd., Through : Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kachhari Chauk Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.). MISCELLENOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOft VEHICLE ACT. 1988. Present:- ShriAditya Khare, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the respondent N0. 3. ./\' ilKMstir. "v V.. €. The fol T.P.Sharma, J:- ORAL-JUDGBMENT (Passedon 24/02/2010y owing iudgment of the Court iwas "Dassed bv Chaltenge j in this appeal is to the I award dated 2/4/2002 | passed by IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (in short 'Claims Tribunat') in claim casei No. 195/2000 dismissing theclaimpetition ftled by the legal representatives of the deceased Goverdhan. Award is impugned oh the ground that court belowhas not considered the evidence sufficient for drawing an inference that deceased died as a result of motor accident and thereby committed an illegality. Bi-ief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal is as per pleading of the party on 3/8/2000, respondentNo. 1, Domarsirigh is driving the truck No. W.B.-23-0737 owned by respondent N0. 2. Balbindarsingh which was insured with respondent N0. 3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. onj account of accident Goverdhan received serious injuries, he was admitted in the hospital during course of itreatment he died. Present appellants are legal represehtatives of the deceased Goverdhan have preferred claim under Section 163-A of the Motor VehiclesAct,| 1988 on accOuntofthe death ofdeceased. Slihl Respondents have denied the allegat: specifically alleged thaf Goverdhaji has not resulf of motor accident therefbre tiori and died as a the legal xs of decea^ed Goverdhan are not enfitled for compensation on account of death of Goverdhan. 5. Affcer affording an opportunity of hearing tp the parties learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on acGount ofthat Goverdhan has not died as a result of mofor accident therefore, legal representatives of the Goverdhan are not entitled for compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. Shri Aditya Khare, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate fbr the respondent No. 3 are heard. Award impugned and record of Court below perused. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that appellants have adduced sufficient evidence to prove that Goverdhan died as a result of motor accident but court below has dismissed the claim petition. 8. On the other harid, learned coiinsel for the responderit No. 3 opposed the appeal and submits that burden to prove the death of Goverdhan, on account of motor accident was! on the appellanfs but appellants have failed to prove discharge the burden therefore, Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. 'w ^ 9 In order to ^ppreciate the argument advarijced on behalf of the parties we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of|the parties. In the present case documenlis and evidencje adduced on behalf of the parties clearly reveal that on 3/8/2000 the truck No. W.B.-23-0737 was driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and was insured with respondent No. 3, on account of motor accident Goverdhan received injuries, he was admitted in the hospitat for treatment and injured Govjerdhan and his relatives have expendsome amount in Ms treatment. 10. The evidence further reveals that Goverdhan has •not died as a result of motor accident but has received injuries in amotor accidenf therefore, appellants/legal representatives of the deceased Goverdhan are not entitled for compensation on account of death of the Goverdhan but in our constdered view that they are certainly entitled for compensation on accoynt of injuries sustained in motor accident while dismissing the claim petition Court below has not considered this aspect and thereby commltted an illegality. Award impugned is not sustainable under the law. Consequently, Appeal is allowed. Award impugned is hereby set aiside. Case is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal. Claims Tribunal shall assess the amount of compensatibn and pass the award afreshi on account pf •s.:' .. ..'.. ..•' ". . . . : ,;. .' •, • . ' ' " ; 1 .: •. :' . • 1. 1 injury sustained by fhe Goverdhan in mother accident. Parties ar^ directed to present before the IInd 1.;. !: . \ • : ' ' 1 ' ' ': : ' . ' ~ Additional District Judge, Raipur on 2jl/4/2010 fbr further progress ofthecase. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ,1^1 y.'