^U^-A-^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR ^^ M.A. ( C ) NojB^f /2009 gj^jg g^Bplt ^ APPELLANTS ^ ./:.l. Sumitra Wd/o Jawahar Yadav, LAIMANTS l0cl. 2. 3. ^FS^ ^ ^^" ^s.^*''.^ ^••^^ V^S^'" & Aged about 45 years, Occupation - Service Shivshankar Yadav S/o Jawahar Yadav, Aged about 32 years, Sanjeev Kumar S/o Jawahar Yadav, Aged about 18 years, All Yadav by caste, R/o Bututola, Ward No.6, Ramanujganj, Tahsil - Pal, P.S. —Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja-(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS NON APPLICANTS :l. Sumant Tiwari S/o Narendra Tiwari, Aged about 24 years, Caste- Brahmin, R/o Village- Bututola, Ward No.6, Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja-(C.G.) 2. 'K Surendra Vishwakarma S/o Jagat Vishwakarma, Aged about 25 years, R/o Village - Bututola, Ward No.6, Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja- (C.G.) CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL : AWARD AMOUNT : VALUATION OF TH^PRESENT APPEAL : MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,1988 Rs.2,90,000/- Rs. Nil Rs.2,90,000/- -CL HIGrH COBRT OF CHHATTBBQMBIATBaASPOR M.A.C.No. 1339/2009 APPBUANT Sumltra and offaeFS VefitWt RESPONDEKTS Sumant Tiwari fflid another SB:- HON'BM; SHRI M.K. AGARWAL. J PRESBNT:- Shri Shaktirq Sinha, Adv. for fhe appeBants. Shri Neeraj Mehta and Shri Ghanshyam Ratel, Adv. for respondents No. 1 and 2. ORAL ORDER (20-9-2010) 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against fhe award passed by the Additional Motor Accideirt Claims 'faibunal (FTC), Ramanujganj (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 27-7-2009 passed in Claim Case No. 4/0)08 dlsmissii^ (he clatm petition. 2. Facts of (he case in brief are fhat on 3-2-2006, at about 6.45 p.m., deceased Jawahar Yadav had gone out of his house to attend the call of nature and when he was retummg to his house, behind the collc®eia main road, Ramanujgaaj, the respondent No. 1 driving the motorcycte I)earaag regjistration No. CG 150/3781 in a rash and n^l^ent naanner, dashed •hlm, as a resiilt of whidi, he sustainal multiple injuries and his bones offhigh, waist and back got fiactured and on 28-10- 2007 he died durtag treatment fai Qavesmment Hospital, Ramanujganj. Tlie dataiants being wife and children of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 offhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clsammg Rs. 2,90,000/- as compensation for (he deafh of fhe deceased in (he said acddent 3. Leamed Tribunal has dismlssed tfae claim petition mainly an the groiind that the appellants failed to prove the above accident and also co-relation between the injuries sustalned aad the death occiirred. '<>„ ''fcf^ ,d? 'Sa-S-^' 4. SIui Shalrtir^ Sinha, leamed counsel for the appellants would contend fhat fhe respondents/the owner and drfarer of the offendii^ vehicle himself admltted in para 2 of his written statement fhat before ttie crimmal Court, he has been convlcted based on his admission and therefore, leamed Tribuiial has erred hi dismissing (he claim petltion on the groimd fhat fhe appellant faited to prove fhe accident 5. I have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties and penased the record. 6. In para 2 of the written statement, the rcspondent/owner has adinitted (hat he was convicted by fhe crimlnal Court based on his admission. This aspect of the matter has been over looked by leamed Tribunal while di^nissii^ flie claim petition hoiding the vehicle m question is not iiwohred in the accident Further leamed Tribuiial has also erred in disinissii^; the claim petltion on recording a findmg that fhe claimant falled to p-<sre tiie correlation between ttie injuites sustamed and the derfti oocurred, inasmuch as even if m a case of accfeleittal injuiy, if it is not proved fhat the deafh has occurred due to the injuries sustained in fhe accident, thc claimaats are enttUed to some amount on accoiint of the injuries sustained. This aspect of the matter has also been over looked by fhe Tribunal whlle dismissing the claim petition. 7. In view of fhe above, in fhe considCTed opinion of fhls Court, the above findlng recorded by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law. The unpugned aBvard deserves to tie and te hereby set aside. 8. For the foregofaig the appeal is allowed ni part. Ttie award passed 1ay the Tdbunal is set aside and the matter 1S i back fm- decision afi?esh. The Claim petition be restored to its oi^ixial number fflid it shaU be decided fai the H^it of the observations made above expeditibusly. Tte Tribtmal shall afford opportunity to both fhe parties ta adduce fiirtfaer evldence and argue thelr case. -! ,^:x"'- B:s.s8iSfti " 9. The records of fhe Cteims "Mbunal ShaU be sent back forthwith. 10. The parties shall appear before fhe Tribunal alcmg-with copy of this order on 19-10-2010. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge f;