IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. f 1 OF 2009 ^^ APPLICANTS )efendants ,^^ ^•••••"'^^^ ^"''.^' ^^'' l^ ^9 >..^' NON-APPLICANTS: /Plaintiffs y 1.^ Kamalnarayan S/o Bhanuram Lodhi Rajput, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Beltukri, Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.) ^- 3. <"" ^ l^ Umasharan, S/o Bhanuram Lodhi, aged about 41 years, R/o Village Beltukri, Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Indra Bai Widow Dharmendra Banjare, aged about 22 years, Caste-Satnami, Occupation Housewife, Ku. Heena, D/o late Dhamendra Banjare, aged about 03 month Minor, Through: natural guardian mother Indra Bai, Panchram, S/o Samaru Satnami aged about 50 years, Phulbasa Bai, W/.o Panchram Satnami, aged about 47 years, Occupation Housewife, All R/o Village Patnakapa, Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.) < CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OFTHE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE '"-78 W^Y ^? 'f^?T^ •asn®n^T%^^ ^i^r^m^ -s^ ^IR^R, -^T^m^, t^ra^ ^..c:A.^.^^^^^^ g^T iq^T C<^^i) ^^iw^^^^ ^jf^^ ^p^f ^'fe^-^R?R ^•^R3?IT^T irwal 27-10-2009 Shri P.P. Sahu, counsej forjthe applicante. Heard on admission. The instant revision is dii|ected against the order dated 17- 09-2009 in Claim Case No.52/p009 passed by Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.p.), Bemetara, District Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby gand whereunder the appiGation preferred by the applteants undeir Or ler 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. is dismissed. Learned couns )! for the a|ppljcants submjts that on a bare pen sa! of the application paras ^ & 4 filed by the claimarrts under Section 166 of the Motor Vehict^s Act (for short 'the Act'), would reveal thatthe accident did not ^ccur by the use of tractor trotley and the accident was not aris^ out of use of motor vehtete, therefore, applteation filed undeif SecUon 166 of the Act is not tenable, however, learned Tribi|nal holding the acddent prima facie as motor vehtele accident, ^ismissed the applteation of the applicants and therefore, the ordej'passed by the learned Tribunal is without jurisdiction and deserve^ to be set aside. 1 have heard learned coiunsel for the applteants and perused the order impugned and jaiso copy of claim petition filed before the Tribunal. y< XI-HC—78 3^i^[^t^ •^s?T^¥i$F^' 75? -^pn^?, ^itOT^, "^n^y 'ITPf(flt W*ll^ •^_200 g^tT5R7(1!i2it3^r) •^^iW^tN^T^ ^rafepft^ Tnq^-^ fe^t ^re?R ^3tf^T3?n^T Without going into meritsjof the matter sufflce it to say that the question whether or notj the petition is maintainable is essential questlon whteh is to ^e decided by the trial Court after completion of pleadings of the ^arties and after framing the issue jnthis regard. Therefore, the revision is ^lisposed of with adirection to the learned Tribunal to decide the ^uestion of maintainability of the claim petition after pleadings ar^ complete and after framing the speciflc issue in this regard, jn |accordance with law on its own merits. The Trial Court mayjin its discretion also frame a prelimjnary issue in this regard. ^~— Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge I6 Kvr