(p IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.A. (C) No. \^n of 2011 h^^ APPELLANTS .^^ S£^' Q^ 1. ^^^< VERSUS Baldau, S/o Ajuram Kannauje, aged about 28 years, R/o Ganaud, Police Station-Mandir Hasaud, District-Raipur (C.G.) (Driver, vehicle tractor no. C.G.-04-D/3568, 3569) Dhanwaram Sahu, S/o ArJunram Sahu, aged about 62years, R/o Ganaud, Police Station-Mandir Hasaud, District-Raipur (C.G.) (Owner, vehicle tractor no. C.G.-04-D/3568, 3569) RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANT h^ : 1. Hariram Dhruw, S/o Baharu Dhruw, aged about 32 years, R/o Baraunda, P.S.-Mana Camp, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Driver & Owner, Motorcycle No. C.G.-04-D.C.-6930) 2. The New India Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, G.E. Road, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer (Driver & Owner, Motorcycle No. C.G.-04-D.C.- 6930) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT. •^......^....:-....-, B"1 ^^^^^i^ HIOH COX7RT OF CHHATTI8GARH &T BILASPUR M.A.fQ N0. 139 OF 2011 APPELLAHTS RESPONBENTS Baldau aiid aiiother, Versias Pai'meshwai' Ram Saliu aiid otiiers. ^ M.A.ICt HO. 140 OF 2011 APPELLANTS RESPOHDEHTS Baldau auod aiiother, VersiMs Hai'li'am Dhi'uw aiid aiiotlier. APE^LANTS M.A.fQ 1^0.138 OP^Gll Baldau aiid another. R^PONDBNTS Versus Chuitai'am Dlii'uw aiid otl-iers. Preseiat : Slit'i Atul Pandey, counsel for the appellaiits (in aU appeals). . Slit'i Sudliir Agrawal, comisel for respondent No. 3 in MA(C) Nos. 1.39/2011 & 138/2011 and respondeiit No. 2 iii M.A.(C) No. 140/2011 APPEALS UNDBR SBCTION 173 OF THS VBHICLES ACT fDtvision Bench: Hon1»leSisn_LM. Quddusi & HQatble ShriG. Miasfe^feddln.'JJ.I OSSAL OHDBH '' •• (Passed on 04^ Day ofJi^ly, 2011| .^- • / Fer LM. Ouddusi, J. The aforementioned fl'u'ee appeals (M.A.(C) Nos. 139/2011, 140/2011 & 138/2011) m'e being disposed of by this common order as ti'iey ai'ise out tlie saiiie accident which occurred on 31-12-2008 by the oflendmg velilcle Tractor TroUey beai'mg Rega.No. C.G. 04-D/3568 aiid C.G.04-D/3569. 2. AU d-ie Tl-u'ee appeals (M.A.(C) Nos. 139/2011, 140/2011 6s 138/2011) have been ffled by ti-ie driver ai-id owner of tlie Ti-actor Trolley beai'iiig registi'ation No. C.G. 04-D/3568 aiid C.G.04-D/3569 agauist tiie impugiied awards dated 13-10-2010 passed by XW Motor Accldent Clauns Tribmial, F.T.C., Raipur (for short Uie Tribunal') so far as it relates to fastemng the Uabillty upon the appellants. However, for the piirpose oftl'us order, facts of M.A.(C) No. 139/2001ai-e bemg refoiTed. '^- 3. Brief facts of the case ia all fhe appeals as projected by tiie claimaats are tiiat on 31-12-2008 at 7.00 P.M., claimaats/appllcaiits were returiiiiig from VUlage Blrbii'a to Barounda along wlth one Hai'iom Dl'ii'uw as pUUon riders on Motor Cycle beai'mg registration No. C.G. 04- D.C. 6930. Neai' Kayabandha chowk, the sald motorcycle was dashed by ttie ofiending vel'iicle (Tractor-Trolley) beai'ing reglsti'aUon No. C.G. 04-D/3568 aad 3569 by rash aiid negligent driviiig of tlie di'iver of tlie ti-actor trolley, as a result ofwhich tiiey sustauied iiijuries m tiie said accident. 4. The leai'ned Claims Tribmial, on a clpse scrutliiy of evidence adduced, material available oa record aiid submisslons made by fhe paities has held fhat there was breach of condltions of the insui'aiice policy aad tliere was no contributory negligence on the pa^t of Driver and owner of the Tractor Trolley. 5. We have perused the records of ti.ie Clalms Tribuiial as weU as the impugned awards. .—"B"'r""'c"":"'"''^i" :AlZ2I-",^'^.^/7 6. Learned counsel for tlie appeUaiits has subiiutted tliat tlie appellaiits were not given adequate opportmilty to plead ti-ieii' case as tl-ie medical ofiicer who had examined tlie mjm'ed had stated iii l~us cross-examuiation tiiat he was not m a position to state tlie alcoholic condltion of flie driver of tlie vehicle whether he had consuiiied the alcohol, tf so up to what extent, wlilch caii be disclosed it after perusmg tlie bed-head ticket. But tlie Claims Tribunal dld not aUow the appeUaats to further re-call medical officer'along with Bed-Head Ticket and exaniiiie him further. Furftier we have also noticed that it has been pomted out by tiie leai'ned couiisel for the appellaiit that Uiere were tliree persons uicluslve of tl-ie di'iver slttmg on the motorcycle. The said motorcycle was beiiig driven by tlie driver Hai'ii'am Dlii'uw. He fm'ther states tl'iat tl-ie driver of fhe motorcycle was slttuig at petrol taiik and not sitting on the seat meant for tlie cUiver. 7. Sections 168 aiid 169 of tlie Motor Veliicles Act as weU as Rule 226 of tlie C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 provide tliat tlie Tribuiial shall conduct Uie enquiiy to asceitaui tiie facts. The clalm petitlons should not have been ti'eated as a civil suit aiid it was tlie duty of tlie . Tribunal to find out fl'ie facts before glving its awai'd. 8. Therefore, we ai'e of tiie opuiion tiiat the matters requii'e reconsideration at tl'ie end of tiie Tribmial. 9. In view of the above, we allow tiie appeais filed by the appeUaiits aiid set aside tlie impugiied awards aiid remit Uie mattere to tiie Tribmial for decislon afresh, after providuig opportui-iity to tiie paities. f 10. Needless to mention fliat flie patties shaU be provided opportuiiity to amend flie pleadings, adduce fuitlier evidence, file documents or get ti'ie documents verified etc., on ti'ie basis of tlie pleadmgs ali'eady on r ^ G . ]2..-s^<3^&@fe£^^ record. The decision a&esh sliaU be taken keeping in mind tlie above observations made by tiiis Coui't. Thereafter, tiie enqiiiiy, tf necessaiy, shall be conducted by fhe Claims Tribunal as provided in Sections 168 & 169 of tiie Act, 1988 aiid Rule 226 of the C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. 11. The parties shall appear before tlie Clalms Tribunal 01129-07-2011. 12. Record ofthe Claims Tribunal sbaU be seiit back wifhout further delay, ^ 13. No order as to costs. Kvr Xit- Sd/- Dr. I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G.Minhajuddin Judge -i Blft