Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 687 (CHH)

Urmila Bai v. Prahlad Yadav

2018-10-22

GAUTAM CHOURDIYA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Gautam Chourdiya, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with award dated 25.10.2016 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba in Claim case No. 182/2013, passed on 25.10.2016, unfortunate parents, wife and children of deceased, appellants/claimants herein have filed claim application before the Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,16,000/- alongwith interest. 2. Learned Tribunal, by its impugned award dated 25.10.2016, dismissed the claim petition filed' by the claimants solely on the ground that no prompt FIR was lodged by the claimants regarding the accident; and the conduct of witnesses is doubtful therefore, claim was rejected and issue No. 1 is decided in this manner that the accident occurred due to involvement of offending vehicle Auto bearing registration No. CG/12/S/0614 is not duly proved. The above finding has been recorded by the Tribunal merely on the basis of case diary of the police and the record of the concern criminal case. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that in the issue No. 2 to 7, no finding has been given by the learned Tribunal and only on the basis of issue No. 1, entire claim of appellants/claimants was dismissed. He submits that the learned Claims Tribunal is committed illegality in holding that the vehicle in question is not involved in the accident. The evidence of Bablu Khan (AW-4) recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is completely supported the case of the prosecution during the investigation. Therefore, learned Tribunal without giving finding on the other issues only on the basis of the criminal case and case diary, entire claim application has dismissed and not considered the evidence and statement of AW-4 while dismissing the appeal and, therefore, the case is remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the issues. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of Claims Tribunal including award impugned. 6. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of Claims Tribunal including award impugned. 6. A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal has framed as many as seven issues for determination of the claim application but the learned Tribunal has decided only one issue and given the finding on issue No. 1 only. The conduct of witnesses is also doubtful; and further no prompt FIR was lodged; and only on the basis of case diary and record of the criminal case, the Claims Tribunal has held that the accident was not occurred by the offending vehicle Auto bearing registration No. CG/12/S/0614; and no any accident had occurred due to involvement of the aforesaid vehicle. 7. Looking to the evidence produced by the appellant and particularly the statement of AW4 Bablu Khan specifically mentioned that he is the eyewitness and was present at the time of accident but this witness was not confronted with his previous statement recording during investigation of his criminal case, therefore, on the basis of the case diary produced before the Tribunal finding given by the Tribunal is illegal and not sustainable. The learned Tribunal also not given any finding on the issues No. 2 to 7, therefore, the impugned award dated 25.10.2016 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal to decide the above stated issues afresh in accordance with law. 8. The record of the lower Court be also send back to the concerned Tribunal. 9. Parties present hear are to appear before the concerned Tribunal on 14th December, 2018. However, the parties who are not represented here shall be given notice by the Tribunal on the said date for their appearance/representation on a date to be fixed by it. 10. Needless to mention the Tribunal shall provide proper and sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, to amend the pleadings and to file additional documents, if any. 11. However, the parties who are not represented here shall be given notice by the Tribunal on the said date for their appearance/representation on a date to be fixed by it. 10. Needless to mention the Tribunal shall provide proper and sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, to amend the pleadings and to file additional documents, if any. 11. It is made clear that noting in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case and the Tribunal to decide the claim case strictly on the basis of material available before it in accordance with law.