<i--^5 .,..,..^:&^ ^^::s^ ..•-'." RESPONDENTS ^.1) IN THE HONBLE HIGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAPSUR Misc. Appeal {Cl No. 1 {'1 .^ 12009 ABPELLANT , Reliance General Insurance : ^ ^ i ^>6\ fCompany Limited, Through Branch Manager, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhavan, Jai Stambh Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) {Insurer} VERSUS Netram Dhruw S/o Kejauram Dhruw, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Guma, Thana Suhela, District Raipur (C.G.) (Claimantst Sanjay Kumar Dewangan S/o Punaram Dewangan, Address - M/s Atul Gases, 70/A, Industrial Area, Nandini Road, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (Driverl M/s Atul Gases, Through authorized officer, M/s Atul Gases, 70/A, Industrial Area, Nandini Road, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (Owner) _<""1 ____. MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994 ^ 3) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. Appellant Resoondents M.A. rcl No. 1057/2009 Vs Reliance Generaf Insurance Co. Ltd. RaJpur(CG) Lakhanlal and others Appellant Respondents And M.A.TclNo. 1196/2009 Vs ReHance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Raipur(CG) Netram Dhruw and others Present: Mr. SS Rajput, counsei for the appellant/insurance company. Mr. Shivendu Pandya.counsei for respondents No. 1 in MA(c) No. 1196/09. Mrs. M. Asha, counsel forrespondents No. 5 & 6 in MA(c) No.1057/09. ORDER (Orall (3rd August, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. These two appeals fijed by the appellant/insurance company are being decided by this common order as they arise out of the same accident. 2. MA (c) No. 1057/09and MA (c) No. 1196/09 have been preferred against the award dated 30.4.2009 passed in Claim Case Nos.01/09 and 49/08 respectively, by 10th Additional Motor Acddent Claims Tribunal, Rajpur (in short "the Tribunal"), insofar as it has fastened liability upon the appellant/insurancecompany. 3. Brieffacts of the case are that on 28.12.2007 Ashish Kumar Verma along with one Maniram Dhruv was going from Raipur to Siltara on motorcycle bearirtg registration No. CG-04-CM/1570. The motorcycle was being driven by Ashish Kumar Verma and Manjram Dhruv was a pillion rider. At that time, at about 10.30 pm, the driver \- \\ ^ 2 ^' ^ Vt of vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07-ZC-1030 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehide"), which was coming from' opposite direction, by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of Asht'sh Kumar Verma, as a result of which Ashish Kumar Verma and Manjram Dhruv fell down, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Their respective legal heirs filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 oftheMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") before the Tribunal for compensation under various heads. 4. Heard learned counsej for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. 5. Learned counset for the appeIlanVinsurance company has submitted thatthe driver was not having a valid and effeetive driving licence but the official from Regional Transport Office came into witness box and stated that there were two registers whereas, jn fact, in the office only one register is maintained. The appeltant's counsel had prayed for declaring this witness as hostile, however, that prayer was not altowed. 6. The fact which needs to be ascertained is as to how two registers are maintained inone office for issuing driving licence, which could not be clarified by the offidal of the RTO. Therefore, jt is necessary for the Tribunal to conduct an enquiry in this regard as provided underSections 168, 169 ofthe Act, 1988and Rute 226 of the CG Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. 7. In the result, we allow these appeals in part, set aside the impugned awards and remit the matter back to the claims Tribunal to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, in the light of observatjons made above. Needless to mention that the parties shatl also be altowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents and get the doeuments verified etc. and thereafter, fresh findings shall be given by the Tribunal and award shall be passed afresh. The Tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide the ciajm petitions afresh as expeditiously as possible, preferabty within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties or date of \ ^l passing ofthe order proceeding ex-parte against any ofthe parties, as the case may be. (t is made clearthat the amount, if any, depositecl by the appellanfc'insurance company shall be kept in a nationalized bank in the form of fjxed deposit for a period of one year and the same shail be subject to the decision to be taken afresh. 8. Parties shall appear before the Tribunalon 8thSeptember,2011. 9. LCR shall be sent back to the Tribunal without further delay. lO.Noorderastocosts. 11. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge