HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.(ClNo.1426of2008 Ramnarayan Singh VERSUS Dipak Kumar Luniya and others ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION HQN'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA J <^L.^Y^-J€— Sd/- Chief Justice 1^.72011 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge For Pronouncement ofOrder ^0.07.2011 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^^;^^:^ ^".-^"•A. ^^ '- .•'"'.. : "^ "^ ':' -•^••^. '" i:l, ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL fC) No. 1426 of2008 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Ramnarayan Sir^gh, aged 39 years, son of Shri Matadin Singh, resident of civil line, Bilaspur, tehsil and district BUaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Dipak Kumar Luniya, aged 24 years, son of Shri Gopal Lurdya, resident of Sundar Nagar, near Ice Factoiy, Jyotipur, P.S. Gaurela, district BUaspur. (Dnver) 2. Smt. Tara Devi Chauhan, wife of Shri Mohan Singh Chauhan, resident of 224/A, Bagmani Road, Kolkata (W.B.) Pm Code - 700054. fOwner) 3. The Divisional Manager, Kolkatta, fhrough the Branch Manager, United India Insurance company Limited, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand Road, BUaspur, tahsil and district Bilaspur (C.G.) ffnsurer) APPBAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLI^ ACT. 1988 Coram; Hon. Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESBNT:- Shri Somnafh Venna, counsel for the appellant. Shn Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel wifh Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3 '^'^1 '^! "v^ 7 ''sx^. '^- ^ '^ ORDER (Passed on2^ -7-2011) Per N.K. Atsarwal, J. This is claimant's appeal against fhe award dated 10.07.2008 passed by fhe Additional Motor Acddents Claims Tribunal, BUaspur in Claim Case No. 170/2007. 2. Brief facts of fhe case are as under: On 13.04.2007 fhe appellant - Ramnarayan Singh was going towards Khongsara on his motor cycle bearing registration No.C.G.10/ZC/1872. When he reached near Bhosko road raUway line, one TATA Sumo bearing registration No.W.B.0.02/H/8559 being driven by its driver/respondent No.l rashly and negligently dashed appellant, as a result of which, fhe appeUant sustained multiple injuries. 3. The appellant, by filing application under section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforfh <the Acf) claimed Rs.9,32,000/- as compensation for fhe injuries sustained by hiin in the said accident against fhe driver, owner and insurer ofthe ofiending vehicle i.e. TATA Sumo. 4. During fhe course of proceedings, the leamed Tribunal rejected ftie appeUant's prayer for adjouminent on 07.07.2008, closed fhe appellant>s opportunity to lead evidence and fixed fhe case for final argument. Vide ~..M ^ -V impugned award, the leamed Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.5000/- in favour of the appellant/claimant and against respondent No.3 along with mterest at 7% per annum from tlie date of application tUl its actual payment. 5. Shri Somnafh Venna, leamed counsel appearing for the appellant woiild submit: wifhout afibrdmg proper opFortunity of hearmg and opportunity to lead evidence, fhe leamed TribunaA has passed the award after closing fhe appeUant's opportunity to lead evidence and thereby fallen in error in awarding low amount of compensation. 6. On the other hand, Shd Shreekumar Agrawal, leamed Senior Advocate appearing wifh Shri Anand Gupta for respondent No.3 - insurance company supported the award and submitted fhat in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amount of compensation awarded by the leamed Tribunal isjust and proper compensation. 7. We have heard leamed counsel for ftie parties and have perused the record of fhe Tribunal including the award impugned. 8. A bare perusal of the order sheets of fhe Tribunal would reveal: without affordtng proper and sufiicient opporturdty of leading evidence, the leamed Tribunal has closed fhe case for final arguments and passed the award impugned without .n ^ there being any evidence adduced by fhe parties. In fhe considered opuiion of this Court, fhe leamed Tribimal should have aFforded propa- and suffiaent opportunity of leading evidence to both fhe parties before closing fhe case and before passing fhe award inasmueh as for want of evidence, it is also not possible for fhe Tribunal to decide fhe claim petition. Furtlier, for want of evidence, it is not possible for fhe appellant/cledmant to establish his case. 9. In view of the above, the award impugned being not sustainable m law, deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding fhe claim petition filed by the appellant afi-esh. 10. Needless to mention fhat fhe Tribunal shall provide proper and sufficient opportunity to both the partdes to adduce evidence and to file additional documents, ifany. 11. Both the parties are free to file additional documents, if any. The record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before fhe concomed Tribimal on 19.09.2011. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge