EHON'BLEHIGH C syiSj?>ei Raspi Bi!05i»!Ii Mgii.ityi RT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. ...6./^OF2008 (APPEALVALUED AT Rs.4.35.000 /-) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR YEHICLES ACTS.1988. APPELLANT ^rfTON-APPLICANT NQ.S) \^ A^ ..-"V ..•••""z^ ^ RESPONDENTS ^PPLICANTNO.l) (APPLICANTN0.2) ?J i--2- ^'"United India Insiu-ance Company Limited, Through: Its Branch Manager, Branch- Office, Near Ram Mandir.Ambikapur,P.S.SE Tah.-Ainbikapiir, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS Smt.Basanti Soni Wd/o- Late Ramesh Soni, Aged- about 28 years, Ku.Madhu Soni, D/0- Late Raraesh Soni, Aged- about 08 years, (APPLICANTN0.3) (APPLICANTN0.4) 3., Suryakant Soni, S/0- Late Ramesh Soni, Aged- about 04 years, ^ ,4. Shanti Devi Wd/0-Late Krishna Prasad Soni, Aged- about 50 years, Respondent no.2 SE 3 are minor, through: their Mother (Smt.Basanti Soni-Respondent No.l) AU are R/0-Vm.-Pachawal, Post-Maharajganj, P.8.- Balrampur, Tahsil-Pal, Distt.-Surguja (CG) CNON-APPLICANT N01) \^ ^ Pravin Kumar Agrawal, S/0- Omprakash Agrawal, aged about-32 years, R/0- Rajpur, P.S.& TahsU- Rajpur, Distt.-Surguja(CG) 1 : ..J^^ ^\.^" f^'^ ^',-^\A (NON-APPLICANTNN0.2-A)^ ^ ^ \\ ^^\ .^j (NON-APPLICANTNN0.2-B) ,-^r 41" ^ v-/^ <. ^" (NON-APPLICANTNN0.2-C) %^, 'r' CNON-APPLICANTN N0.3) g-K>. »—> (NON-APPLICANTN N0.4) (tiM tr- r w^ Smt.JamUa W/o Late Gulam Natt^; ^Aged About- 38 years, ^-—<AA IC^JM Istiyakh Ansari S/o Late Gulam Nabi, Aged About 18 years, Babu S/o Late Gulam Nabi, Aged About - 14 years Respondent no.6 to 9 are R/o- VUlage Kasturi, Sada Veedha , Post - Pholdi (Jagdishpur), P.S.- Husainabad, Tah..- Japla, Distt. - Palamu (Jharkhand) The'Oriantal Insurance Company Limited, through: Branch Manager the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ambikapur, Distt- Sarguja (C.G.) Dinesh Kumar Soni S/o Late Krishna F*rasad Soni, Aged About 2' years, R/o-Namnakala, Ambikapur P.S. & Tah.- Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 1 ^7 H!GILCO^JRT^)F^HHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M^A. (C) No. 614 oj 2008 Appellant United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Snit. Basanti Soni 8s others APPEAL UNDER SECTLON_173_OFLTHEMOTOR VEHICJ.ES_ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited. Shri Sudhir Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent No. 9/The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. None for the other respondents, though served. ORDER (OraU ( Passed on this 4th day of November, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited against the impugned award dated 25.9.2007 (Smt. Basanti Soni & others Vs. Pravin Kumar Agarwal & others), passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, in Claim Case No. 30/2006. The respondent No.9 - Oriental Insurance Company has filed the cross objection dated 29.11.2010. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 2.8.2004 in the morning at about 10.00 a.m. deceased Ramesh Soni was going to Mahuapara, Rajpur by his motorcycle, bearing registration No. C.G. 15-C/5564 and the truck bearing registration No. C.G. 15-A/2776 was going ahead the motorcycle of the deceased.' On the way, the driver of the truck, without giving any indication, all of a sudden stopped therefore the deceased collided with the truck. He received grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. •Y \'. .-^aesi3a^ 7. ;\ ^ •V The claimants/dependents of the deceased filed a claim case under Secdon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application, holding the owner of the truck (Non-applicant No.l - Pravin Kumar) and Oriental Insurance Company (Non-applicant No.3 - Insurer of the Truck) asjointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 87,000/- and the non-applicant No.S/United India Insurance Company was held liable to pay reinaining ainount of Rs. 3,48,000/- as compensation. However, the appellant/Non-applicant No.5/United India Insurance Company has been authorized to pay and recover the amount from the non-applicant No.4 (Dinesh Kumar Soni). The appellant Insurance Company has been fastened the liability to pay and recover from the owner of the raotorcycle to the extent of 80% of the total award and remaining 20% liability has been fastened on the Oriental Insurance Company i.e. insurer of the truck, which is the cross-objector in the instant appeal. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award. Learned Tribunal has held that the deceased himself was negligent to the extent of 80% and the motorcycle was being driven in violation of the conditions of the Insurance Policy as the deceased-driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and instead of two persons (driver and pillion rider) three persons (driver and 2 pillion riders) were sitting on the motorcycle. On perusal of the record it is evident that no issue was framed by the learned Claims Tribunal for contributoiy negligence. This is also a question of consideration, as to whether the owner of the motor cycle can be held liable to give compensation to the borrower or to his dependents in the event of death of borrower, who was driving the motorcycle in contravention of the coriditions of the Insurance Policy. All the'se aspects have not been considered by the learned Claims Trikbunal. It is also not mentioned as to how the Insuranee Company of the Truck is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the extent n"^^^-—.^ ^•.7T^slss'^.''L.' '••:•... :• ^f-''»'' ^7 of 20% of the compensation and what was the negligence on the part of the driver and owner of the ti-uck. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires consideration at the end of the Claims Tribunal after making proper issues the compensation shall be awarded. 10. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed in part, the impugned award dated 25.9.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for decision afresh in view of the observations made herein above. Consequently, the cross objection stand disposed of. No order as to cost. 11. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the docuraents verified etc., and thereafter decision shall be taken afresh. If necessary, the Tribunal shall conduct an enquiry. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 30th November, 2011. 13. The LCR shall be sent back without further delay. 14. If the amount is deposited by the Insurance Companies, the same shall be allowed to be withdrawn by them. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge G.Minhajjudin Judge X