^::^^ .^'"' ^" yff IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CG) Misc.Appeal No. -S"'2'?^ Of 2006 APPELLANTS : /l. Stephen Kujur S/o Late Ledo Kujur, aged about 50 Years, occupation agriculturist. 2. Smt. Sabina W/o Shri Stephen Kujur , aged 48 ' Years, qccupation house wife. Both resident of Village Gopatu Police Station Kusmi, Tehsil Sainri, (Kusmi) District Surguja (CG). RESPONDENTS: VERSUS l._ Goverdhan Ram Oran S/o Shri Sukhawa •' ^\Rain Oraon , aged about 30 years, occupation tractor driver . 2. j^Bahadur S/o Shri Khonda Ram aged about 22 years, owner of the tractor , Both resident of Kusrai, Tahsil Samari, (Kusini) District Surguja (CG). h3. The Branch Manager ,United India Insurance Company Liinited, Branch Office near Ram Mandir Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). \^"' MEMORANDUM OP MISC APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLESACT ^^~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shn Justice IJVI. QyddusLand Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal No.537 otW06 Appellants Respondents versus Stephen Kujur and another Goverdhan Ram Oran and others Present: Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3; None for respondents No.1 and 2. MiscellaneousApBeal under Section 173 of the-'Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14th March, 2011) Per I.JVI. QyddysLJ.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants challenging the award dated 11-4-2005 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, Surguja in Claim Case No.40/2004. » 3. Brief facts of the case, according to the claimants, in short, are that on the date of accident, i.e., 10-3-2005, a tractor bearing registration No.CG 15A 0496 was parked by its driver Goverdhan Ram on the road near Kusmi Tahsil Office in the night. At that time, one Firoz was coming driving a Hero Honda motor cycle. The deceased Joseph Kujur was also sitting behind Firoz on the motor cycle. The motor cycle got dashed with the tractor parked on the liigiltfa •^'••^-l ,:,—^ ••<; yfh § sy ^y^ <~; 2 road. On account of the accident, both Firoz and Joseph Kujur died on the spot. The claimants, i.e., father and mother of the deceased Joseph Kujur preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.12,84,000/-. 4 . The Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim ofthe claimants. 5. We have perused the record of the Claims Tribunal and found that in the merg intimation, which is recorded promptly as well as in the F.1.R., which was registered on the basis of merg intimation, it has been specifically mentioned that the tractor and trolley were parked in a dangerous condition and they were not bearing any indicator or light, due to which, the motor cycle collided with the tractor resulting in the accident and spot death. 6. The Claims Tribunal has given finding on the basis of the statement of the driver of the tractor. The driver of the tractor was an interested person and he would save his position first, therefore, believing the statement of the driver of the tractor in making the decision would be an unsafe exercise. Further, the contents of the F.1.R. (Ex.P-9) were proved and corroborated in the claim petition as well as in .tjie statements of the witnesses of the claimants. In this regard, in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Premlata Shukla and others, (2007) 13 SCC 476, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 13 and 14 thus: "13. However, the factum of an accident could also be proved from the first information report. It is also to be noted that once a part of the contents of the document is •^^,A •» ®) admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot b'e permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It was marked as an exhibit as both the parties intended to rely upon them. 14. Once a part of it is relied upon by both the parties, the learned Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the other part, irrespective of the contents of the document having been proved or not. If the contents have been proved, the question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not ypon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had not been proved in accordance with law, would not ^rise." 7. In view of the above, the negligence and liability of the driver ofthe tractor cannot be ruled out and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal committed error in exonerating the driver and the owner of the tractor and dismissing the claim petition. 8. In view of the above, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Claims Tribunal, therefore, we allow the miscellaneous appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Claims Tribunal for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above. The Claims Tribunal shall also conduct an enquiry as laid down in Section 168 of the Act as well as in Rule 226 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Motor .*** Vehicles Rules, 1994. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 13th April, 2011. i.sa Gopai ^ -^ 9. Needless to mention that the pari:ies shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the documents verified etc. and thereafter the claim petition shall be decided and fresh award shall be passed. There shall be no order as to costs. —-— Sd/- '.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge