1 2025:CGHC:17699 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1492 of 2018 1. Sumitra W/o Late Ramgopal Paikra, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Through Mahamaya Stationary, Navadih Chowk, Seepat, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Geeta Paikra D/o Late Ramgopal Paikra, Aged About 13 Years Through Their Natural Guardian/mother I.E. Sumitra, Aged About 30 Years, W/o Late Ramgopal Paikra. R/o- Through Mahamaya Stationary, Navadih Chowk, Seepat, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Rameshwar S/o Late Ramgopal Paikra Aged About 11 Years Through Their Natural Guardian/mother I.E. Sumitra, Aged About 30 Years, W/o Late Ramgopal Paikra. R/o- Through Mahamaya Stationary, Navadih Chowk, Seepat, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Ramlal S/o Munju Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o- Through Mahamaya Stationary, Navadih Chowk, Seepat, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Sahodari W/o Ramlal. Aged About 54 Years, R/o- Through Mahamaya Stationary, Navadih Chowk, Seepat, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1. Suresh Kumar Paikra S/o Shri Budhuram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o- New Mines, Bhatgaon, P.S. Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director Health And Family Welfare Department District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.04.21 17:23:03 +0530 2 3. Chief Medical Officer District Hospital Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Adv. For Respondent No.1 : None. For Respondents No. 2 &3 : Mr. DilmAN Rati Minj, G.A. with Ms. Neeta Tulsiyani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (17.04.2025) 1. This is claimant's appeal against the impugned award dated 03.08.2017 passed by the 09th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, C.G. in Claim Case No. 501/2014 whereby and whereunder the appellant's claim petition has been dismissed. 2. According to the appellants, on 01.11.2013, Ramgopal (now deceased) was going towards his cycle shop on his motorcycle with his son Rameshwar (pillion rider) and when they reached near shop of Hafiz Saeed then an offending vehicle Mahatari Express bearing registration No. CG-02-4207, driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner coming from wrong side and dashed the motorcycle of Ramgopal (deceased), as a result of which Ramgopal sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, the accident was reported to the outpost Karanji, P.S. Vishrampur and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No.1. Due to the casual death of the husband/father/son of the 3 appellants/claimants, there is an irreparable loss to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') against the respondents to claim a total compensation of Rs. 22,98,000/- for their irreparable loss. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the learned claims tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the accident dated 01.11.2013 has not been proved as the appellants/claimants have neither adduced any leading documents/evidence nor got exhibited the documents which has been produced along with the claim application. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claim application under Section 166 of M.V. Act is a public welfare enactment therefore, the matter may be remanded to the claims tribunal for reconsideration and after giving sufficient opportunity to produce documents and evidence in this case. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal may be allowed. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the appellants. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal. 6. From the perusal of the record of the Claims Tribunal, it appears that issues were framed on 25.01.2017 and the case was fixed for appellants’ evidence on 10.02.2017, 03.03.2017, 03.04.2017, and 11.05.2017, but no evidence was produced. Thereafter, 4 opportunity for the appellants/claimants to lead their evidence was closed on 28.06.2017. The case was then fixed for the respondents’ to lead their evidence on 05.07.2017, 28.06.2017, 21.07.2017 and 29.07.2017 but no evidence was produced. Subsequently, the case was listed for final hearing on 03.08.2017 and the same has been rejected as the accident has not been proved by the appellants by leading evidence/documents. 7. The instant case is of death in a motor accident for which the legal heirs of the deceased have preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles which is a public welfare enactment. In this situation, I find it appropriate to give an opportunity to the claimant party to lead their evidence. 8. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned Tribunal to pass award afresh, in accordance with law, on its own merits after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence/documents. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Claims Tribunal on 08.05.2025 at 11:00 AM sharply. 10.Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with the copy of this order. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.