IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAPSUR Misc. Appeal {C} No. ZS'C/ Q7 [2009 APELLANT P In s‘urance Company Limited, Through Branch Stambh Chowk, {insurer} VERSUS l) Smt. Shanta Singh Wd/o Late Jainath Singh aged about 38 years, Ku. Neha Singh D/o Late Jainath Singh, aged about 16 years, {3} Nikhil Pratap Singh S/o Late “f Jainath Singh aged about 12 years, natural guardian mother respondent no.1 Smt. Shanta Singh, All R/o Village District mmmn mam Reliance General Manager, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhavan, Jai Raipur (c.G.) Gudi, Tahsil Seepat, Bilaspur (C.G.) Lglaimants) RESPONDENTS (ggw'f) Karmu Singh S/o Shri Dasin Ram, § Address — Village Shivnandanpur, Ward no.—l3, Vishrampur, District Surguja (C.G.) [Owneg g‘m’w’ 5) Mohan Singh S/o Late Bholaram aged about 81> years, R/o Village 8;, Post Tiwara Buti, Tahsil — Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) (2’ ,6) Anand Shandilya S / o Late Ramsharan Shandilya, aged about 23 years, Thana Shivnandanpur, Mahavir Colony, Vishrampur, District Surguja (C.G.) (Driverj WW MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994 Respondent no. 2 8a 3 minor represented through The appellant begs to submltasundf’r;...,......... ,,‘....................‘......‘...............‘‘...‘.‘‘.‘.........‘...............‘‘......‘‘...‘.‘‘..‘.‘......... ” HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!$GARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri LM. Quddusi, J. & Hon’ble $hri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. MA. (C) No. 1546 0f 2009 Shri SS. Rajput. counsel for the appeuant. Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, counsel for reepondent No.4. Smt‘ Bhagwati Kashyap and Shri Sudhir Kashyap, counsel for respendents No.1 to 3/caveators. ORAL ORDER r memo“; Following oral order of the Court was passed by I. lVl. Quddusln J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Reliance General insurance Company Limited against the impugned award dated 19/09/2009 passed by the l Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 330/2007 by which the insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation. (2) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the claim petition, are that on 10/11/2007 deceased Jainath Singh was coming back from Ambikapur in his motorcycle with applicant No.2 who was sitting as pillion rider, when they reached near viliage Kanakpur, then motorcycle Bajaj Piatina coming from front side being driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.4 dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which Jainath Singh and applicant No.2 were thrown away from the motorcycle. Jainath Singh received grievous injuries and he was taken to Ambikapur for treatment where he was declared dead. Deceased was aged about 43 years and was Principal in Darripara School. He was getting saiary of Rs. 19,242l- per APPELLANT Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Shanta Singh and others. ,2, month. Claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.36,29,0401- but the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 20,95,000l—. (3) The grievance of the appeHant in this appeai is that the claims tribune! has not considered the spot map of the accident prepared by the police while deciding the issue regarding contributow negligence. He has further contended that admittedly the widow of the deceased had got compassionate appointment but this fact has been ignored while assessing compensation whereas in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another reported in 1999 (1) SCC 90 relied upon in another case Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Kanta Aggarwal (Smt) and others, 2008 (11) SCC 366 it has been held by Hon‘ble Supreme Court that while assessing loss of dependency the fact of compassionate appointment is to be taken in to consideration, therefore the ciaims tribunal has committed error in ignoring the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court. (4) We have perused the Lower Court Record and found that though in the finai report tiled under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by the police against the driver of the offending vehicle. there is mention of spot map but spot map is not available on record. It was the duty of the Tribunal to conduct an enquiry as provided under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rules. 1994. (5) Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short ‘the Act’) provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in subsection (1) of section 165 may be made by the persons mentioned therein and Section 1S8 provides that on receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the Claims Tribunai shall. after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the , \ \ \ mw w \Wwm ’3’ parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hoid an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the ciaims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shaii be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle invoived in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be. (6) Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules’) provides for obtaining of information and documents necessary for awarding compensation under Section 40. ltspeciticaiiy provides that the Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever information and documents which may be found necessary from the Police, Medical and other authorities and proceed to award the claim whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on the appointed date. (7) But, the Tribunal failed to consider the same and therefore we are of the opinion that the issue regarding the contributory negligence has not been considered properly. Besides this, the fact of compassionate appointment has also not been considered, therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunai (8) Therefore, we allow this appeal in part, set-aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh after conducting proper enquiry. (9) Needless to mention that the parties shail be allowed to amend the pieadings, adduce further evidence, fiie documents or to get the documents verified etc. and thereafter claim petition shali be decided. f (”r {2’7 % , (1 0) The parties sha“ appear before the Tribunal on 21" June, 201 1. (1 1) Lower Court Record be sent back without further delay. (1 2) No order as to costs. Sd/- ‘ Sd/- ‘ I.M.Quddussi Prashant Kumar Mxshra Judge Judge