IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS 1. 2. 3. 4 ^ ^2006 RESPONDENTS OWNER VERSUS <=,> Saharo Bai W/o Bhaya Lal aged about 31 years Caste - Panika R/o Village - Jarahi, Thana 85 Tah. Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Ku. Lakhni D/o Late Bhaya Lal aged about - 12 years Caste - Panika, Through - Minor her mother Srut. Saharo BaiAppellant No. 1. Ku. Punni' D/o Late Bhaya Lal aged about - 10 years Caste - Panika, Through — Minor her mother Smt. Saharo Bai Appellant No. 1. Jamuna Prasad S/o Late Bhaya Lal aged about - 8 years Caste - Panika, Through - Minor his mother Smt. Saharo Bai Appellant No. 1. Ku. Laai D/o Late Bhaya Lal aged about - 6 years Caste - Panika, Through - Minor her mother Smt. Saharo Bai Appellant No. 1. Ku. Nan D/o Late Bhaya Lal aged about - 3 years Caste - Panika, Through - Minor her mother Smt. Saharo Bai Appellant No. 1. All are Resident of Village - Jarahi, P.S. & Tah. Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Geeta Prasad S/o Sarju aged about - 30 years, Caste - Rajwar, Occupation - Govt. Servant in S.E.C.L. (Onwer) R/o Village - Jarahi, P.S. 8s 1 INSURANCE ^^ 2. J»RIVER ^ Tah. Pratappur, Surguja (C.G.) Distt. The Oriental Insurance Company Liraited Branch Office Ambikapur P/s and Tah. Aambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Ameshwar Prasad @ Unaeshwar Prasad S/o Jokhu aged about 22 years Caste-Rajwar, Occupation driver of Yamaha Crux Motorcycle R/o Village - Jarahi (Badipara) P.S. & Tah. Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL U/S 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 AMOUNT CLAIM BEFORE TRIBUNAL 23,50,000/- AMOUNT AWARD BY TRIBUNAL - NIL te.'""" COURT FEE : Rs. 15/- '^fA, ^sS&^ ?t?i- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA^PUR APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS I.A. No. 534 of 2006 Saharo Bai & Others Versus Geeta Prasad & Others. ^ (Ownert APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Manoj Paranjpe with Shri Vikram Dixit, Advocates for respondent No, 1 & 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 27.10.2010) Per: I.IVI. Quddusi, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appeilants against the award dated 30.01.2006, passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (for short 'the Tribunat') in claim case No. 6/04, dismissing the claim petition of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 22.12.2003, Bhaiya Lal (since deceased) while going towards Jarhi on the motoreycle bearing registration No. CG-15-C-1848, owned by respondent No. 1, near Petro! Pump (Banaras Road) fe!l down from ~- rgotorcycle, as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 3. The claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of deceased in the said accident. 4. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding, in fact the accident has taken place but it has not been proved that motorcycle No. CG-15-0-1848 is involved in the said accident as has been stated by the claimants in the ctaim petition. 5. We have perused the Lower Court Record. Shashi Sinha (AW- 3) has stated in his statement that he was working as a Watehman in the Petrol Pump which belong to Deva Seth of Surajpur and he has seen the accident. The same facts has been narrated in the cross-examination also besides other witnesses, but the Tribunal has not taken in to consideration this fact and dismissed the claim petltion. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the facts is that the accident had actually taken place, we are ofthe opinion that the matter requires re-consideration by the Tribunal eoncemed. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The order dated 30.01.2006 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal coRcerned, for decision afresh. 8. The claim petition of the claimants shall be restored to its ^ original number and same shall be decided afresh after providing an opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidences, to amend the pleadings and to file documents, if any. ,_^--—- 1 !w\ 9. Needless to mention that the Tribunat shall 'decide the claim petition as earty as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of LCR. The LCR shall be returned forthwith. —-._— Sd/- .M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. AgrawaS Judge Sahu