(^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Aooeal {Q No. V~I 2- ,2ol\ APPELLANT RESPONDENTS ^i.- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Shiv . Mohan Bhavan, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Pandri, Raipur Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Insurance Company) Versus Om Prakash Sahu S/o Bhagwat Ram Sahu, Age-28 years, R/o Village Ghoghara, Post Parsada Kala, Thana-Fingeshwar, Up Tahsil Fingeshwar, District Raipur, (C.G.) (Claimant) 9-$?-''; .-i'..^"^ Tikamchand Sahu S/o Gopal Sahu, ^ ^' "; ^^ ..•^Y^^.'"' aged about 32 years, R/o Village ^^^^T^.I651^" ' Charbhatti,^Thana-Fingeshwar, Up ' A ..-••" Tahsil Fingeshwar, District Raipur, (C.G.) (DRIVER) 'w^ 3) Sitaram Sahu S/o Khorbohara Ram Sahu, Suraj, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Charbhatti, Thana- Fingeshwar, Up Tahsil Fingeshwar, District Raipur, (C.G.) (OWNER) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 y HIQH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON'BLB I. M. QVDDU8I & HON*BLE G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M.A(a No. 1098 OF 2010 APPBLLANT RBSPONDBIITS: Bajaj Allianz General Insuraace Compaoy Lioiited Vs. Smt Devantin Sahu & ofhers. M.A(Q No. 172 OF 2011 APPBLLANT/NON- RBSPOHDBNTS: Bajaj Allianz CSteneral Insiirance Conipaay Limited Vs. . Oiaiprak^sti Sahu & two ofhiers MISCBIAANBOUSAPRBALSXmDBRSBCTION 173 OFTHB jMOTOR^EHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Sachin. Singh Rajput, counsel for fhe appeUaat Insuraace Company. Mr. C. R. Sahu, counsel for respondents 1 to 4 aad Miss Amiapuraa Singh, couasel for respondeuts 5 & 6 ia M.A.C. 1098/2010. Shri C.R, Sahu, Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for rcspondents 2 & 3 in M.4.C. No. 172/2011. 7 ORAL ORDER (Pasrod on09th day ofNoveiabw, 2011) PCT LM. OUDDUSI. J. 1. These two appeals have been jBled by fhc Insurajace Compaay agaiast fhe iinpugaed award dated 30.06.2010 passed separatety by the Additional Motor AccMent Clafans Tribunal, Gariyaband, Distdct Reiipur in. Claiin Case Nos.81/2009 and y 80/2009 in so far as it relates to fastenmg fhe Uabilily upon fhe appeUaat Insuraace Coinpaay to pay coiapensation to ftie claiiiiaats. Siace bofh fhese appeals arise out ofthe same accident inet wifh. by fhe Vehicle - Tractor beariag Rega.No.C.G.04/ D.M-0523, fhey are being disposed ofby this common order, M.A(C).No. 1098/2010 relates to Claim Case No. 81/2009 (Snit Devantin Sahu and others -vs- Teekcanchand Sahu) in which a total coinpensation amouxit of Rs.4,76,400/- has been awaided aad M.A,(C), No»80/2009 relates to Claim Case No.80/2009 (Om Prakash Vs. Teekamchaad Sahu -vs- Teekamchaad Sahu aad ofhers) ia which a total compensation ofRs,53,000/- has been a%arded to the mjiired clafcniaiit. 2. Brief facts of the case as per fhe version of fhe claiaiants are ftiat on 20,04,2009 deceased Narendra Kuinar Sahu was comiag fnom Rajim by Motorcycle along-wifh his fidend Om Prakash Satiu as PiBion rider. On fhe way, at about 12 noon near Bawakuti tuni on Chautra Belar Maia Road., a Tractor bearing Rega,No.C.G,04/D.M. 0523 which was beiag driven by npn-applicaat no.l Teekainchand Sahu in a rash aad negligent maaner suddenly cut fhe tunung, due to which, the troUey attached to fhe Tractor d^shed fhe inoto^cycle, as a result of which, Narendra Sahu aad Om Prakash Sahu both sustamed gnevous iojuries and durmg fhe course of treatment, Narendra Sahu died whereas iajured Omprakash Sahu became permaaenfly di^abled, / The Claunafits widow, childrcn aad mofher beiag legal representatives/dependents of the deceased Narendra Sahu W--r w I, have fited claim petitions u/s 166 offbie Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for fhe award of a total compensation of Rs.26,50,000/- on various heads statmg fhat at the tune of accident, fhe deceased was aged about 26 years; he was a Tailor and was eanung Rs,300 - 350/- per day. The injured claimaiit Omprakash Sahu has also filed Claim Petition for fhe award of total compensatiQn of Rs.8,70,000/ - on various heads. 3. The learued Clauus Tribunal haviag regard to fhe facts situation, matenal aad evidence on rccord has held fhat fhe Vehicle bearing Regn. No. C.G.04/D.M.0523 driven by non- appUcant no,l Teekainchaad Saliu, ia a rash aad negl^ent maiiner, dashed fbie Motorcycle, as a result of which, deceased Nareiulra Sahu died and Om Prakash Sahu became permaaenfly disabled on account o&the iajuries sustamed by tiim in fhe said accident; aad fhe claimaiits of deceased Narendra Sahu are entifled to receive a total compensation of Rs.4,76,400/- and ihe clamiarit uijured Le., Oinprakash Sahiu is entided to receive a total compensation ofRs.53,000/- from fhe noa-applicaats joiiitiy and severaUy. 4. We have heard learaed counsel for fhe parties aad have also gone fhrough fhe records of fhe Tribunal. 5. Learaed counsel for the appellant/Insitrance^Company argued fhat fhe TraUor attached to fhe Tiactor was not iasiired aad as such, tihie Insuraace Coxapany coiild not have been held liable to pay compensation as the accident took place wifh fhe TroHey and not fhe Tractor. 6. The Clamis Tribunal has held that even if the accident occurred with fhe TroUey, fhe Insuraace Company is liable to pay coiapensation, ^ 7. The words "Motor vehicl^ or "velucle" have beeii defined ia fhe Motor Vehicles Act ia section 2(28) which are reproduced as under: 2(28) "motor vehicle" or avdbiclea!l meaas aay iciechaaicaUy propeHed vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether fhe power of propulsion is traasmitted fhereto fix)m an exteraal or ia.tenial source and iDcludes a chasis to which a body has not been attached aad a traUer; but does not include a vehicle runiirag upon fiixed rails or a vehicle of a special lype adapted for use onty in a factoiy or in any ofhLer enclosed preinises or a vehicle haviag less thaa. four wheels fitted wifh eiigine capacity of not exceediag [twenly five cubic centimeters]" 8. For fhe purpose of claim u/s 166 oCtiie Motor Vehicles Act, fhe negligence of fhe driver of fhe ofiendiag vehrcle is to be proved, The <troUey? does not contabi aa engine aad cannot be driven by any driver unless it is attached wifh the Tractor aad uUimately fhe driver of fhe Tractor would be rcsponsible ia case of any accident even if it is taken place wifh the rear part ie., TroUey. The above aspect has not been considered by fhe Tribunal. It is also to be seen fhatwhefhLer fhe Tractor as well as TroUey bofh are registered separately by fhe Registermg Aufhority mider the Motor Vehicles Act aad also msiired separately, Therefore, iu oiir opiaion, fhe matter rcquires reconsideration at tiie end offhe Tnbimal. 9. Hence, we allow fhese appeals m part; set aside fhe impugned awards dated 30.6.2010 and rcmit the matters back to the / Tribimal for decision afircsh in ftie Ught of fhe observations made above, ^ Rao 10. Needless to mention that fhe parties shaU be aUowed to amend fhe pleadiags, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the documents verfc&ed etc., aiid fhereafter tihie Tribunal after conductiag pioper enquiry shall inake fhe award, The partiies shall appear before fhe Tnbuual on 14th o£December, 2011, The records offhe Tribimal shaU be sent forfhwifh. No order as to costs. —.r:^-—_—„. Sd/- Dr. I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ,^' ..^a»^ai>-i£-s?£^;