IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.A. ra 1_ /2009 1188i@ Q'SiKi APPELLANTS : CLAIMANTS ^' "^ ^,,;^- ^.&. )M ;ffb 1. Domar Singh S/o Tannu Sahu aged about 57 years 2. Kejabai W/o Domar Singh, aged about 50 years Both R/o village Mokha, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: NON-APPLICANTS ^-1- 2. Koushal S/o Shiv Prasad R/o village Bodal, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (CG) Shiv Prasad S/o Ghanaram Sahu, R/o village Bodal, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (CG) Miscellanceous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 1994 Beina aaarieved the iudament and award passed by the Ist Addl. Case No. 02/2000, i»- y HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISeARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Shanna Miscellaneous Appeal (Cl No. 218/2009 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS 1. 2. Vs. Respondents 1. NON-APPLICANTS 2 Domar Stngh S/o. Tannu Singh, aged about57yefirs, Keja Bal WA».Domar Singh, aged about SOyears, Both R/o. Village Mokha, Tahsil Gunderdehi, district Durg (CG) Koushal S/o. Shh/ Piasad R/o. Village Bodal Tahsil Gunderdehi, Dlstrict Durg Shh/ Prasad S/o Ghanaram Sahu, R/Q. Village Bodal, Tahsil Gunderdehi, district Durg (CG) Appeat under Section 173 of Motor Vehieles Act. Presenf: Shri S.C. Verma, counsel for the appellants. Shri R.S. Patel, counsel forthe respondents. ORAL ORDER (19tllJuly,2011.) The appeal arises from the award dat«t271h November, 2018 passed by 1st Additicmal Motor Acclctent Claims Tribunal, Durg In Clatm Case No.02/2000. 2. Brief facts of the case, are that on accoreling to the appellants, the appellants are the legal representatives of deceased Lunkaran. Respondent No.1, who was driver of the offendlng vehicte Tractor No.M.P. 23-G/1872 and Trolley No.M.P. 23-G/1873, and near Auto Centre Village Moldia, the vehkde met wlth an accident and Lunkaran died. At the time of the Incident, the /^ ""\ <yy 's s 2 ^ deceased was aged about 22 yeare and he was eaming Rs.6,000/- per month. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were drlver and owner of the offending vehtele respectively. The appellants/ctaimants being parents of the deceased filed claim case for compensation. 3. Leamed counsel for the appellants submits that the leamed Tribunal has failed to assess the evidence availableon record in its right perepective. The leamed Tribunal, without examlning all the aspects of the matter has rejected the claim of the appellants. Thus, the award Is not based on sound reasoning and as such, not sustalnable in the eyes of law. 4. On the other hand, leamed counsel Tor ttie respondents supported the award. 5. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties and havhig perused the documents and evidence; it is evident ttiat the Tindings recorded by Uie Tribunal for rejecting the clalm are not based on sound appreclation of the evidence on record. The leamed Tribunal, In paragraph 13 ofthe Impugred award, has observed that respondent No.1 Koushal, who was driving the tractor and trolley on the fateful day, had taken the traretor and troll^ to the auto centre of deceased Lunkaran for checking of air in the tyres and for repairing of puncture. After repairing of the puncture, whm the vehtete was being drlven, the tyre had got burst and the disc had detached, due to vriiich dweased Lunkaran sustained Injuries on hls head and other parts of Uw body. Looking to the evidence available on record, It appeare that the tearned Tribunal has not marshaled the evldence in its r^ht perspective, thus, impugned award deserves to be set aside. ''fKa^ 'y ,^sss? < ^gs^l . "<i£iy^/s ^^ CS3/ ,.-ff?° --•F *>s. 6. tn view of the for^ioing, the impugned awaid dated 27.11 .2008 te set aside. Slnce the determination was not made with regsu'd to grant of compensatlon, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration and determination of the compensation, tn accordance with law, on its own mertts, as eariy as possible, preferably within sfa( monttte from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order. The Tribunal inay consider further evidence also, if adduced by the parties. 7. The parties are permitted to acktuce aekUtiaiat evldence if so advlsed. 8. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. The Registry is dlrected to send back the record requisltioned from the Tribunal forthwith. RadheShyamSharma Judge Bini