IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR:C.G. f-y cn ^ ^ M.A.C. no. Appellants: (No.l driver& No.2 owaer) .^>- ^^ Respondents: (Resp.l to6 CIaimacLts) /09 ^^ 1. Alxmed Khan Rizvi, aged 38 yrs., s/o Shri Rahim Khmi Rizvi, r/o by the Khubchand Baghel lane, Nayapara, ^ P.S.Kotwali, Raipur, C.G. Dilip Kumar Thouram, aged 52 yrs., s/o Shri Sajandas, at Baba Garibdas Radio Centre, M.G.Road, Raipur, C.G. Versus ^ ( Resp.-7: Insurer) ^t. Chunkibai, aged 24 yrs., wd. /o Late Shri Giteshwar Sahu. Rupeshwar, aged 5 yrs., s/o late Shri Giteshwar Sahu. ^3. Miss Dameshwari aged 3 yrs.d/o late Slm Giteshwar Sahu. 4. Tularaoa,aged 55yrs., s/o late Shri Chaiti'am Sahu. ^ 5. Gangabai, aged 50 yrs., w/o Shri Tularam Sahu. Devendra, aged 18 yrs., s/o Shri Tularam Sahu. Resp. no. 2 and 3 being minor, sued Arough their mother and natural guardian Smt. Chunkibai, the respondentno.l. All fhese respondents rr/o Lalpur, P.S.Tikrapara,tahsil and dist.Raipur, C.G. 7. Ififco-Tokio General Insuraace Co. Ltd., 3rd. floor, 345-347, Lalganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur, C.G.( Insurer ofthe offending vehicle) ^ /Motor Accident Apoeal U/s 173 ofthe Motor Vehieles Act.1988. ^' ^ ^'•^'11 f;IK ^.^^ ^s.-!-'a I •-^^ HIGH COURT OF AT MR. and (No.1 driver & No.2 o-wner) (Resp. 1 to 6 Vs and Mr. Bhlshma Kinger, counsei for the appeliants. Mr. CR Sahu, for Nos.1 to Mr. RK Singh, counsel for respondent No.7. p"dAu9ust,20l1) 1. ThJS 173 of the Act, 1988 has been fiSed agalnst the award of 9 Additional Motor Acddent Ciaims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur, (in short "the Trlbunal"), 23rd in No.44/08, the to pay th© & 2. Srief of the case are that on 12.4.2007 at 5.10 pm .Giteshwar Sahu, who was by hls •^ffefmtlnn Mn fn-H^/CJ-TRnn w^^ ri^^h^d hv n^r hH^rinn' •^^;^^., ^^., ^?i , i<s^.i« "'^ •^.^"^^s^.?-.uf'^'" » \»!''WW, yv^.^-'.zs ^fcA-'.^s iWu3 s^ y '^'wiS mnj^fratjnn Nn fH-nd/HA-nnn? fh^rein^ft^r tn ^^ "tl "-.^^-?^2 ^liWs S i'-a.'^J', '--^\.-3'"'W;'"reB7 a.»rf;,?'"^"'\..?'WW > ^5 1^.?! ^rU S-^A 3 5,^ a S'•i.s'S Wg i ^'uw ';.' vehicle"), whteh, at that was with No-7/lnsurancQ and by No.1 In a rash and to-Durg. On ofthis firj^vf)!!^ jnjiirj^^ r^^iijtjnf! in hte. JH^teHt^n^oi.j^ d^atj ^i s-L^ V ^^"iw? ; i s^ is.,i 5 ; •-^•-^ , i ^•C/^ssiU s^y . i. d i H<-2' U K;?l.c^5 ai.^As ;'^ W £..'3••-«? as^4-rl.Tilis s .. 3. At the of the a of 30 ^aans, and the of his On ilII ^^/ of his the has and as 4. No. 1 to 5 are and of the and as they of the a 166 of the Motor Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") for a totai of Rs.10,84,000/- under-various the of 5. Tribunai, scrutiny of the evidence, and or-ai. ied by the it, a total of Rs.3,93,500/- the upon the & owner, whiie NoJ/insurance 6. for the LCR as also the 7. Upon of the LCR, we found that the drlver had fiied copy of drivjng by Transport Offtee (RTO), Durg, No.A/9006/DURG, which was vaiid up to 7.5.2010. the was filed the Tribunal, it was duty of the compatiy to get its verification done and produce the frorn the concerned RTO tn Jt is found that the driving or notissued by RTO, Durg. However, this has not been done and the Tribunai has reiied upon the document I.e. driving iicence authorizing the driver to drive motorcycie oniy Issued from RTO, Raipur. No one from RTO, Durg was produced. Therefore, in our opinion, it is a fit for remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for conducting a proper enquiry as provided under Sections 168 and 169 of the Act, 1988 and Ruie 226 of the CG Motor Vehlcies Rules, 1994. 8. tn the result, we aliow this in part, set the impugned award insofar as it has fiabjlity upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal shait fix the iiability afresh providing opportunity to the concerned to amend tihe pjeadings, further evidence, fiie documents or get the documents verified eto. ————— •3^'-1 9. Meediess to mention that the cEaim petition shail be decided afresh expedltiousjy, preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance of aii the parties or frorn the date of order proceeding ex-parte against any of the parties, as the may be. tO.Parties shali appear before the Tribunai on 7th September, 201 1. 11. LCR shafi be back to the Tribunal without further delay. 12.1r3 case, any amount has been by the appeliants, the shaii be refunded to the o'wner. h'ov^ever, the by the award to be afresh by the Tribunai. 13.No order as to costs. l4.Certlfied copy as per ruies. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^/ °°^^~~ -sw^.f^s^isysssv