THE HON'BLE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR L M.A.(C) No.l .'3?^. OF 2009 (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs 4,00.000 /-} UNDER SECTION173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. -^'^~ WtfSSsGn K ^ S^! »M.-.- »^^sssn-a' ', \^^-~ ^y.^ ^.^-y'"" RESPONDENTS (APPLICANT N0.3) (APPLICANT N0.4) T L: Its, Divisional Divisional-OfGce, Trade Centre, Opposite Rajiv : The New India Liruited, Manager, Floor Rama Axis Bank, Bus stand Distt.-Bilaspi VERSUS 1. Rishi Kumari Chatura Sahu, ;2. Durgesh Sahu, S/0- Late Sahu, aged -12 years, :3. Oiuprakash sahu, S/0- Late Chatura Sahu, aged -09 Years, Respondent no. 286 3 are through their inother Rishi Kumari sahu (Resi i, w/O-Late -30 years, Dulari Sahu, Aged- 60 Years, Respondent No.l to 4 all are R/0- viU.-Nagoi, P.O.-Baima, P.S.-Sarkanda, Tah.& Distt.-BUaspur (C.G.) Guharam, S/0- Manglurain, Aged- 55 years. R/0-Seepat Road, Near SECL, Tah. & Distt.-Bilaspiu- (CG). Hall Mukam: Kirari, P.S.- Shakti, Distt.-JanjgiT- Through: Owii.er ofvehicle, Shyara Ashish Auto Needs, Proprietor- Tarun Mishra, ^, (J3UAO)-(00) jndsB^ig-'usia 'jndsang 'JB§BN 3-[oqsp[fey 'pBog sSLreqoxg-suoqdaisj, 's-ao^j Q9 -O/^ 'Bjqsipt uruBj,-jo-(.ai.idojd 'spaaN Qfrvf qsiqsy ureXqg 'g: (J3AUQ) -(oo) jnds^ng -'nsiQ 'jndsBpg 'je3^^[ sjoqspifeg 'paog aSireqoxg -auoqdsisj, 'g-ao^j 09-0/S (Z'ON XNVOnddV-NON) HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISiON BENCH: HON'BLE iVIR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ. 1.A. rcl No. 1376/2009 lespondents/ AeBlicant No.1 Vi The New india Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur (CG) Rishi Kumari Sahu and others Present: Mr. Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellanVinsurance company. Mr. Samir Singh, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6. ORDER (Orall (27th July, 2011) •i.J: 1. This appeal has been fited by the appeiiant/insurance company against the award of the 1 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (in short "the Tribunal") dated 28th July, 2009 passed in Clairn Case No.11/09, insofar as it has fastened the liability to pay compensation on the appeilant/insurance company. 2. Brief facts of the case are Shat oh 3.2.2009 Chatura Sahu was coming from the house of his reiatives on his motorcycle to the piace of his residence at Nagoi. As soon as he reached near . Chantideeh petroi pump, the driver of Tanker bearing registration No. CG 10C-2090 by dri'ving the vehicie in a rash and negiigent manner dashed the motorcycle of Chatura Sstiu, as a resuit of which he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. Report of the accident was lodged af Police Station : Sarkanda, whereupon crime was registered under Cr.No.54/09 for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. The deceased was the only earning member of his famiiy. He was earning Rs.9,000/- by driving rickshaw. Therefore, the cialmants being legai heirs of the deceased flled a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act^ FT i-iUBMUU.. ^ •y ^- 1988") claiming a fotal compensation of Rs.14,99,000/'- for the death of Chatura Sahu under various heads. However, learned Tribunal, after ciose scrutiny of the evidence, oral and documentary, ied by the parties, awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- by fasfening the liabifity upon the appellant/insurance company. However, proceedings against the •iver and owner were heid ex-parte. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the lower court record (LCR) as weil as the impugned award. Learned counsel for the appeliant/insurance company has urged that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving iicence as he was the driver of the vehicle containing explosives but was not having driving licence for the said purpose. The respondent driver tias filed copy of the certificate of the licensing authority, in which renewal of the driving iicence has been shown from 25th August, 2006 to 24th August, 2009 and thereafter from 25th August, 2009 to 24th August, 2012, for each three yeare and there is an endorsement also against the class of vehicles to drive explosives LMV, HMV, and for explosives the period is from 23.1.2010 to 22.1.2010. The date of accident is 3.2.2009. Since the case was decided against the respondenf driver ex-parte, he could not produce the licence, though, according to learned counsel for the respondent driver, an application was moved for setting aside the ex-parte order, but the same remained pending and durng pendency of that application, this appeal was filed, in which record of the Tribunal has been summoned. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the documents fited by the respondent driver, we are of the opinion that the question "as to whether the driver of the offending vehicie was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date ~of accident", is to be decided by the Tribunai. Therefore, the matfer requires reconsideration at the end of the-Tribunal on this point. In the result, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned iward and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the case •;,{-:' afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, in the !ight ofthe observations made above. 5. Neediess to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend the pieadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the documents verified etc. and thereafter, the award shall be made ifresh. 10. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 24 August, 2011. 11. LCR shall be sent back to the Tribunal without further delay. 12. No order as to costs. 13. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- I.M.Quddussi Judge Sdf- G.Minhajjudin Judge \A^\