JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 28.03.2017 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the “Tribunal”), Dhamtari (C.G.), in Claim Case No.52/2016 rejecting the claim application of the claimants for the death of Taranhar Sahu. 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the appellants, in brief are that on 05.06.2015, deceased Taranhar Sahu was going to Bagdehi from Kurud on his motorcycle in a considerable speed. When he reached near Chorbhatti Nala, at the relevant time, one motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-05-U-9876 driven by respondent No.1 herein, in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite side and dashed the vehicle of Taranhar Sahu as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries over his head. Thereafter, Taranhar Sahu was immediately taken to Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur (C.G.), where he died on 06.06.2015 during the course of treatment. A claim petition was filed by the appellant/claimants who happen to be the legal heir of the deceased claiming a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- inter alia pleading that the deceased at the relevant time was aged about 24 years, he was skilled driver and earning Rs.300-400/- per day. 3. Pleading of the claimant have, however, been denied by the respondent/insurance company. 4. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim application of the claimants on the ground that the claimants have failed to establish their claim that deceased Taranhar Sahu died due to rash and negligent driving of respondent/non-applicant No.1 herein. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 5. Counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has erred in law in not awarding any compensation to the claimant. He further submits that though the postmortem report of the deceased has been filed by respondent No.2, according to which, it has been written in the application form of postmortem examination that the deceased sustained head injury due to falling off his motorcycle and his head hit a tree because of thunderstorm, however, the said avarment has been written by the police and no one has been examined to substantiate this fact. He also submits that Chimmanlal Sahu (PW/2), eyewitness to the incident, has specifically stated about the occurrence of accident but the learned Claims Tribunal, ignoring the evidence of this witness, arrived at finding of rejection, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He also submits that Chimmanlal Sahu (PW/2), eyewitness to the incident, has specifically stated about the occurrence of accident but the learned Claims Tribunal, ignoring the evidence of this witness, arrived at finding of rejection, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He also submits that the Insurance company has neither filed any investigation report not any evidence to rebut the evidence of Chimmanlal Sahu (PW/2), therefore, finding of rejection recorded by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and deserves to be set aside awarding adequate compensation to the claimants. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656 . 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/insurance company supports the award impugned. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. The appellants/claimants examined two witnesses in support of their claim. Chimman Lal Sahu (AW/2), who at the time of accident was present there, stated that the non-applicant/respondent No.1, driving his vehicle Platinum bearing registration No.CG-05-U-9876, in rash and negligent manner, dashed the vehicle of the deceased, as a result of which helmet of deceased was broken and he sustained injury over his head and deceased Taranhar Sahu succumbed to the head injury. That apart, non-applicant/respondent No.1 Sumit Patel (driver) also stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, deceased Taranhar Sahu, driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner dashed his (respondent No.1) motorcycle as a result of which the accident took place. Furthermore, non-applicant/ respondent No.1 has also admitted this fact in his cross-examination that a criminal case was also pending before the Court of Kurud and he has not given any information either before the Court or before Police Station and S.P. Office with regard to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. 9. The appellants have filed certified copy of criminal case which was registered against the non-applicant/respondent No.1. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/5), cause of death of deceased was head injury and after completion of usual investigation, police filed final report under Ex.P/1 against respondent No.1-Sumit Patel. 9. The appellants have filed certified copy of criminal case which was registered against the non-applicant/respondent No.1. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/5), cause of death of deceased was head injury and after completion of usual investigation, police filed final report under Ex.P/1 against respondent No.1-Sumit Patel. The learned Tribunal recording the finding that as per FIR (Ex.P/2), the accident took place on 05.06.2015 and the FIR was lodged on 21.11.2015 & that in postmortem requisition form it has been mentioned that the deceased fell down and hit a tree because of thunderstorm as a result of which deceased sustained head injury and succumbed to the head injury, dismissed the claim application of the claimants holding that the claimants have failed to prove their claim case that the deceased died in the accident which took place on 05.06.2015. Rather there is evidence of Chimman Lal Sahu (AW/2) and non-applicant/ respondent No.1 Sumit Patel, which clearly established that deceased Taranhar Sahu sustained injury in the accident which took place on 05.06.2015 and succumbed to the head injury. 10. While dealing with the issue of contributory negligence on the basis of site map indicating the spot where the motorcycle was lying after the accident, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mangla Ram (supra), held in para 32 and 33, which reads thus :- “33. We find substance in the criticism of the appellant that the spot where the motor vehicle was found lying after the accident cannot be the basis to assume that it was driven in or around that spot at the relevant time. It can be safely inferred that after the accident of this nature in which the appellant suffered severe injuries necessitating amputation of his right leg above the knee level, the motorcycle would be pushed forward after the collision and being hit by a high speeding jeep. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has found that the spot noted in the site map, one foot wrong side on the middle of the road was the spot where the accident actually occurred. However, the finding is that as per the site map, the motorcycle was found lying at that spot. That cannot be the basis to assume that the appellant was driving the motorcycle on the wrong side of the road at the relevant time. However, the finding is that as per the site map, the motorcycle was found lying at that spot. That cannot be the basis to assume that the appellant was driving the motorcycle on the wrong side of the road at the relevant time. Further, the respondents did not produce any contra evidence to indicate that the motorcycle was being driven on the wrong side of the road at the time when the offending vehicle dashed it. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant contributed to the occurrence of the accident by driving the motorcycle on the wrong side of the road, is manifestly wrong and cannot be sustained. The High Court has not expressed any opinion on this issue, having already answered the issue about the non-involvement of the offending vehicle in favour of respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 34. In other words, we are inclined to hold that there is no tittle of evidence about the motorcycle being driven negligently by the appellant at the time of accident. The respondents did not produce any such evidence. That fact, therefore, cannot be assumed. Resultantly, the argument of the respondents that the appellant did not possess a valid motorcycle driving licence at the time of accident, will be of no significance. Thus, we hold that there is no legal evidence to answer the issue of contributory negligence against the appellant.” 11. Revering to the facts of the present case, in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla (supra) and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, evidence of Chimman Lal Sahu (AW/2) and non-applicant/respondent No.1 Sumit Patel, it it clear that finding so recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue Nos. 1 to 4 are not based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, as such, the impugned award dated 28.03.2017 is not sustainable. The impugned award dated 28.03.2017 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for deciding the issue Nos. 1 to 4 afresh in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mangla (supra) after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, to adduce additional evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their case/claim and also afford opportunity to amend their pleading, if any. The learned Tribunal Court is at liberty to frame additional issue, if necessary. 12. The learned Tribunal Court is at liberty to frame additional issue, if necessary. 12. The Registry shall immediately send back the original record to the concerned trial Court for deciding the claim case on its own merit preferably within six months from the receipt of copy of this order. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merit and the trial Court to decide the same after due appreciation of the evidence without being influenced by the observation made herein above.