^ c.^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHKBLTTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 1335.. OF 2009 fAPPEAL VALUED AT Rs 15,62.731/-1 APPEAL UNDER SECTION173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. y.s ,K?S" APPELLANT (NON-APPLICANT N0.3) ?Vi lae,,;,.;-^ R.-":r|;, •^f-T^ \,^v ^9- s^ .••""'A^?" ...yv RESPONDENTS (APPLICANTNO.l) The New India "Assurance Company Limited, Through: Its, Divisional Manager, Divisional- Office, IInd Floor Rama Trade Centre, Above Axis Bank, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Bus stand Road, BUaspur, Tah.Sc, Distt.- BUaspur(CG). VERSUS :1. Smt. Asha Devi Chauhan, Wd/0-Late Vijay Kumar Chauhan, aged -45 years, (APPLICANT N0.2) (APPLICANT N0.3) :2. Ku. Chandra Kiran Singh, D/0- Late Vijay Kumar Chauhan, aged -19 years, c3- Devendra Pratap Singh, S/0- Late Vijay Kumar Chauhan, aged -16 Years, Respondent no. 3 is minor, through their mother-Smt. Asha Devi Chauhan (Respondent No.l) Respondent No.l-to 3 all are R/0- Quarter No. 443/5/A BALCO Nagar Korba, Tah.Ss <Distt..-Korba(C.G.) "?-.. 'Mc, (NON-APPLICANTNO.l) :4. Rahman Khan, S/0-Nathuni Miyan, R/0-Through: Alam Shah, behind Anjali Hotel, Saheed Veer Nagar, Khurshipar, BhUai, Tah. 8s Distt.-Durg (CG). (Driver) -<; ) (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) :5. Rajesh Sakuja, S/O-Shri Anant Ram Sakuja, R/0-Heerapur Miirgi Farm Raipur, G.E.Road Tatiband Raipur (CG).(Owner) HI6H COURT OF CHHATnSe/ftH AT BlLASpUR &iyi I/'U • It^n* HON'BLE Mft. I.M.QUb&USI iiON'BLE Ar'tR.PRASHANT KUMAR ^33L M.A. (O No. Respondents Aj?p®i|Siiit Respondents Vs The Nsw India Assur-ance Co. Ltd. Smf. Asha bevi Chauhan <S (rfhers M.A. (O No.l336/MQ7 Ths New India Asarance Co. Ltd. Vs Smf. Asha Devi Chauhan <& others AAr. Dashrath 6upta Advocate for the appellants in both the appeals. nAr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate for responctent No.l to 3 in both the AA". M.K. Bnig, Advocate for respondent h.to.4 A 5 in both the appeals. ORDER (OraD (6TiTJanunry, 2011) ^; 1. Heard. 2. AA.A. (c) No.1335/09 A AA.A. (c)No. 1336/05' filed by the appellant- insurance company are being disposed of by this common order as both these oppeats have been filed against the common award dated 16.7.2009 passed by the learned AAotor Accident Claims Tribunai. Korba in Claim Cases No.233/07 & 250/07, arisinq out of the same incidenT, wherebv the Tribunal has allowed the claim petitions of theclaimants, awarded compensotion and fastened liability-on the InsuranceCompany. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are thot theclaimants have filed two separate claim petitions before The Tribunal seekinq comDensation for the accidental death of Vi.jay Kumar Chauhan, husband & father of the claimants respectively, nnd Neetu Singh © AAamtQ Singh Chauhan, daughter dsisterof the claimants respectively, who died in a motor accident which took place on 31.12.2003, when the Jeep bearinQ registration number C<7l2-Z&-0116, in which the claimants and the deceased were travelinq, was dashed by The offending vehicle bearing registration number C604-6-3216 on account of rash and riegligent dhvina of the said vehicle by its driver. The claimants <^9 'vi/ '/-'! ',^-°^.'^ .iy' "~^: ~^, QU T.. have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.47,30,292 & Rs.41,50,800/"- respectively under various heads. 4. Non-applicant No.l has been proceeded ex-parte before the Tribunal below. 5. Non-applicant No.Z-owner of the vehicle, filed his written statement denying claim ofthe claimants on the ground that due to rqsh and negijgence driving by the deceased the accident hdd taken place, He furfher contended that for- the relevant period, the vehicie in question was insured with non-appticant No.S-Insurance Company and Therefore, if any liability is fastened on the non-applicant No.2, then the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the same. 6. Non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company also filed its written statement and contended thot at the time of accident the driver of offending vehicle was not possessing effective and vaiid driving licence. Further, the Insurance Company has denied the liability on the ground that neirher any cover note nor insumnce policy has been issued bythe Insurance Company in the name pf owner of offending vehicle, therefore, the Compnnyis not liable to pay anv compensation. 7. The Tribunal, afrer considerinq the issues framed by it and also evidence brought on record by the parties, allowed the claim applications of the ciaimants and awarded compensatjon of Rs.15,62,731/- & 2,85,4QO/- for the death ofdeceased Vijay Kumar Chouhan di Neetu Singh respectively. 8. ftAr. 6upta, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submifted that infaet Xerox copv of cover note filed by the claimants was the fake one and infactno insurance of the vehicle involved m the accident was done, but the Tribunal did not take into consideration the said aspect of the matter nnd while giving finding on Issue No.7 haswrongly helrfthat the vehicle was insured wit'h the insurance company at the retevant period and therefore, the insurance companY is liable to satisfythe award. 9. On the other hand, learned advocates appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned award. lO.We have hear'dlearned counsel for the parties. W'e have also perused the reeords of the tribunal. 11. On close scrutiny of the record, we found that in Claim Case No.233/07 an application was movedon behalf ofthe appellant-Insurance Company to take note that the cover note was o fake one and it was prayed that the same be sent for investigatjon to the police. Detoils of Xerox copy of the cover note was mentioned in that application j.e. Cover Note No.61333, Inspector Code No.86909 and Agency Code No.6142. Later on, the Tribunal has also passed an order on 10.8.2005 to the effect that the non-applicant No.l was dbsent on that day and the application Wouid be disposed of only in the presence of the non-appiicant No.l, but thereafter the same was not considered and award has been passed agajnst the appellant-Insurance Compony. In another clajm case i.e. 250/07, also the Insurance Company had filed the copy of letfer sent To the Superintendent of Police concerned for lodging complaint regarding fake cover note, but the same has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Thus, in such a situation, we are of the opinion that the matter requires r-econsiderotion at the end^rfThe Tribunal below. 12. Accordingly, w/e ollow the appeat jn part, set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal concerned for taking decision afresh in lightof observations made in thisorder. Neediess to mentjon that the claim cases shall be decided by the Tribunal after prpviding opportunitYtp the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, amend the pieadinqs, file documents or verify the documents already •filecf. It is also direc^ed that the amount, which has atready been deposited by the appeltant-Insurance Companyand yet not disbursed to the ctaimants/shall not be either refunded to the appellanT-Insurance Company or disbursed to the ctaimants till the disposal ofthe claim petition. t. 13-The Registry is directed to transmit the record of the claims tribunal concerned without further delay. , 14. A copy ofthis order be placed in M.A. (Q No.1336/07. 15. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- I-M.Quddussi Judge 'Sd!- prashantKumarMishra Judge Arf<-"'-