I L l?s?i B'*—' ~ :• ^i^^^-iv ••' ^-s'Giii-si IN THEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) APPELLANTS M.A.NO. (' f200^j PREMPAL AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SON OF SHRI MOHANLAL AGRAWAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE POLICE CHALGALI. CHALGALI, STATION. DISTRICT. SURGUJA (CHHATTISGARH) OWNER OFVEHICLE y •* ^fSQ^ '2 ^<3€^ *\ ^'^iSc?.** ^y^ ^e^ .''' ^s^-- <'®".-A"' o" PRADEEP AGRAWAL, AGED YEARS, SON MOHANLAL RESIDENT OF CHALGAU, P.S. DISTT. SURGUJA DRIVEROFTHE KUMAR ABOUT 23 OF SHRI AGRAWAL, VILLAGE CHALGALI, (C.G.) VEmCLE VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. / RAMSOORAJ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS SON OF LATE BANWARI PRASAD. •-1 2, RAMSEVAK, AGED ABOUT /' 24 YEARS, SON OF LATE BANWARI PRASAD. ^ MADAN PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, SON OF LATE BANWARI PRASAD. MAKHOLAN DEVI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WIDOW OF LATE BANWARI PBASAD. ALL ARE RESIDENCE OF VILLAGE BHENDRI, PIS. RAJPUR, DISTT. SURGUUA (CHHATTISGARH) THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NEAR RAM MANDIR, AMBIKAPUR, DISTRICT- SURGUJA(CG) (INSURER) CELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT^ 1988 -£L_-7_5_ B ^ Biaa !ji.^ © HIGHGOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MANo.97of2004 APPELLANT : Prempal Agrawal and another. Versus RESPQNDENTS Ramsooraj andothers. MISCELUWeOUS APreAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTORWHiCLESACT7l9re ~ Divjsjo_nBench: Hon'bieShri I.M. Quddusi& Hon'bte Shri N.K. Aaarwal. ><•]. Present: Ms. Pushpa Dvrived, counsei for the appellants. Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.5. ORALORDER (Passed on 8 day of September, 2010) Per I.M. Quddusi. J. Heard. 2. This appeal has been fitod ^ainst ttie impugnect award dated 18-10-2003 passed by First Addittonal Motor Accidant Clainis Tribunal, AmUlcapur, Surguja (for short the TribunaF) in Clahn Gase No. 97/20)1 wherebythe leamed Tribunal has awanted an amountof Rs.1,30,000/-, holdir^ ihe liability to pay compensatfon to e claimante on the appeltants along with interest @ 9% per annum. 3. Brieffacts ofthe case are that: On 07-03-2001 Banvrari Prasad (sinc® decease<Q nrfiite retuming from Village Ranhat to his home on Mcycle, he was dashed by the dwer of Bus bearing r^istraUon No. MP 27-WieS6, as a result ofwhich he succumbed to the injuries sustained fn thesaid aascldent. 4. The claimants unfortunat®widow and sons of the deceased filed an application before the Tribunsri under Section 166 oftheMotor Vehicles Act (for short the Act*) claiming Rs.8,72,30W- as compensation for the death of deceased in the said acehtont 5. It appears that during the proceedir^, the ctoimants did not appear before the Tribunal concemed to adduce U»eir widence despite opportunities granted to them from time to Ume. In such a situation, the leamed Tribunal should have foltowed Oreler 17 Rute 2 'SBil IS Slittl| read wth Oreler 17 Rute 3(b) of CPC and sheukt hawe passed the order in accordance wth Order 9 Rute 8 of CPC. In tect, hi the absence of the claimants, the award couM not hav®been made, therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned award is liabte to set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted back to the leamed Tribunal concerned. 7. In view of the above, we attow this appeal in part and srt asicte the impugned award and remit the mattsr back to the Tribunal concerned: 8. Since Uie matter has become an old one and tfie (^ihnants are sons and widow of the deceased, we direct that they shalt be provided an opportunity to adduce evidence and thereafter, the toamed Tribunal will proceed further. Needless to menUon here that if the claimants avail the opportunity ef adducing evideni», tha nwi- applicants shall aiso be provided opportonity to adduce ewttwce In rebuttal of the sams. For the above purpose, fte paiti^ shatl appear betore the learned Tribunal concemed on 04-1©'2010 and ttie Tribunal concemed shall make an endeavor to conclude the matter as eariy as possible preferabty within a period of four monttis from the date ofappearance ofthe parties. 9. It is also directed that the amount whfeh has alBBady been deposited by the appellants, shalt not be reftmdsd titl fte deciston <rf the claim petiUon. 10. No order asto costs. ^^2 Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge N.K. Agrawal Judge Kw