^.'<. } ^' i^qiiI^=^FivEitii IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(Q No. fA ?^ /2010 ABPELLANTS K^spondent no.1& 2 ?^;' \^.^ ^ ^--, ft i-^ '^^- RESPONDENTS yClaimants / X" ^2] ^ Jashvinder Singh Chabda, S/o. Rajendra Singh Chabda, aged about 26 years, R/o. Ring Road, Namnakala, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ...(O^ner ofbus bearins resistration no. C.G 15/A-4440) Ramanuj Prasad, S/o. Holsai, aged about 30 years, R/o. Village Sondiha, Police Station Ramkola, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Surguja (C.G.) ...(Driver ofbus bearins resistration no. C.G 15/A-4440) VERSUS Smt. Rambai, Wd/o. Late Manraj, aged about 25 years, Rakesh S/o. Late Manraj, aged about 7 years, Rahul, S/o. Late Manraj,aged about 5 years, 4j Vinay S/o. Late Manraj, aged about 3 years, Runjha Ram S/o. Late Janki, aged about 55 years, ^y Smt. Basmatiya, W/o. Shri Runjha Ram, aged about 50 years, Respondent no.2 & 4 are minors., through their natural guardian/mother Rambai, All above are R/o. Village Ghanghari, Police Station Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) United India Insurance Company, Branch Office Ram Mandir, Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ...(Insurer ofbus bearins resistration no. C.G 15/A-4440} Respondent/respondent no.3 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT _^-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ Appellants Respondents No. 1 & 2 Respondents Claimants M.A.(ClNo. 167/2010 Jashvinder Singh Chabda and another Vs Smt. Rambai and others C) Present: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Sunit Tripathi, counsel for respondents No.1 to 6. Mr. Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.7. ORDER (Oral) (8th November, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J 01) This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/owner & driver against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur) (in short "the Tribunal") dated 19th November, 2Q09 passed in Claim Case No.65/07 whereby liability has been fastened upon the appellants/ owner & driver of the vehicle, exonerating the insurance company. 02) Brief facts of the case, as per averments made in the claim petition, are that on 22.10.2006 Manraj Gond was going to his Village- Ghanghri from Kalyanpur. At that time, appellant No.2 by driving the bus, owned by appellant No.1 and insured with respondent No.7 at the relevant time, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Manraj Gond, as a result of which Manraj sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in District Hospital, Ambikapur for treatment, where he died on 24.10.2006. 03) At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 35 years and he was earning Rs.6000/- per month. Therefore, the claimants, who are widow, children and parents of the deceased, being his legal heirs/dependents filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") for a total compensation of 22,65,0007- under various heads. 04) However, learned Tribunal, after close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.3,57,300/- in favour of the claimants, fastening the liability, jointly and severally, upon the appellants/ owner & driver of the offending vehicle, exonerating the insurance company. 05) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. 06) Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the burden of proof was on the insurance company to establish that the driver ofthe vehicle was not having a validand effective driving licence on the date of accident, but the insurance company had failed to discharge its burden as no officials from the concerned RTO was called or any other evidence was led in this regard, whereas the appellants had produced certain documents to substantiate their contention that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. 07) Sections 168 and 169 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the CG Motor Vehicles Rules, provide that the Tribunal shall conduct an enquiry to determine the fact in respect of award of compensation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in treating the claim petition as a civil suit and deciding the same only on the basis of pleadings or the evidence adduced by the parties. It should have conducted an enquiry to find out the truth so that liability could be properly ascertained. 08) Admittedly, the burden of proof was on the insurance company to establish that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and therefore, the insurance company should have called the officials of the concerned RTO to discharge its burden. It is also to be noticed that driving licence was issued in the year 1996 and was renewed from time to time. The amendments made in between in the Act, 1988 and the rules made thereunder were also liable to be considered. However, the Tribunal .^ 1. "'^ ^ ^ has failed to do so. Therefore, in our opinion, the matter requires reconsideration at the end ofthe Tribunal. 09) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award, so far as it relates to fastening of liability upon the appellants/ owner & driver to paycompensation to the claimants, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the claim case afresh, in the light of observations made above. 10) Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the documents verified etc. and thereafter, the award shall be made afresh. 11) Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 14 December, 2011. 12) LCR shall be sent back to the Tribunal without further delay. 13) No order as to costs. 14) Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge