IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Miscellaneous Aooeal {Q No. ^ l ^ /2011 APPELLANT ^ ./ • K^1) t^ ^-!<> -w^ ^ Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, through Branch office at Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur Tahsil 85 District Raipur (C.G.) [INSURER] VERSUS Mrs. Rajkumari Singh w/o Late Shri Suresh Prasad Singh, Aged 25 years, Ku. Ishwari Singh, d/o Late Shri Suresh Prasad Singh, Aged 8 months, (minor) [minor through mother Mrs. Rajkumari Singh, w/o Late Shri Suresh Prasad Singh Ful Singh, S/o Late Shri Manjan Singh, Aged 60 years Mrs. Jayanti Bai- w/o Ful Singh aged about 55years -^ [All resident of Shanti Nagar- Kusmunda, Katghora, Distt.- Korba, C.G.] ^ ^ .<>,;•'." ^) ^ Ramesh Kumar Sao, S/o Shri Karam Dev, aged 40 years, Resident of Navadih, P.S- Khajuri/Distt.- Palamu, Jharkhand. [Driver ofvehicle no. CG 12 C 1753] Jay Singh, S/o Shri Heera Singh, Resident of Quarter No. B/51, Urja Nagar, SECL Geora Project, Distt.- Korba, C.G. [owner ©fvehicleaao. CG 12 C 1753] •liii •^l 19 •ia ml ^ .aa ^m ::» •:^;J.il MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 ^iM HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH : BILASPUR M.A.(ClNo.615of2011 Appellant Respondents Appellant Respondents Appellant Respondents Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Mrs. Reeta Devi & others M. A. (Ct No. 616 of2Qn Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Mrs. Rajkumari Singh & others And M.A.(CtNo.617of2011 Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Mrs. Tapeshwari & others DB: Hon'ble Dr. Justice I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Minhajuddin Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company. Shri Sanjeev Punva, Advocate for the claimants. Shri V. K. Dubey and Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocates for the owner. None appears for the driver. O R D ER (Orall (Passed on this 2nd day of December, 2011) Per Dr. I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. The aforementioned three appeals ( M.A. (C) Nos. 615, 616 and 617 of 2011 ) are being decided by this common order as they arise. out of the one and the same award dated 21.2.2011 passed by the ^ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, Korba in Claim Case Nos. 202, 56 and 57 of 2007. /. .*< /> 7. Brief facts, in nutshell are that on 12.4.2006 at about 8.00 p.m. in the night the non-applicant No.l (Ramesh Kumar Sab) while driving the offending vehicle - Truck, bearing registration No. C.G. 12-C/1753 in a rash and negligent nianner dashed two stationary trucks, bearing registration Nos. C.G. 12-C/9363 and C.G. 12-C/9958 from behind. As a result of this accident Dhirendra Singh, Laxmi Prasad, Ganga Singh, Basant Kumar, Raghu and Suresh, who were standing there, received grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The legal heirs/dependents of deceased Suresh filed Claim Case No. 202/2007 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 28,50,OOO/-, wherein learned Claims Tribunal, by the impugned award dated 21.2.2011 has awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,37,500/-. - The legal heirs/dependents of deceased Ganga Prasad filed Claim Case No. 56/2007 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award ofa total compensation ofRs. 40,90,OOO/-, wherein learned Claims Tribunal, by the impugned award dated 21.2.2011 has awarded a total sum ofRs. 4,66,500/-. The legal heirs/dependents of deceased Basant Kumar Mahto filed Claim Case No. 57/2007 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 24,90,OOO/-, wherein learned Claims Tribunal, by the impugned award dated 21.2.2011 has awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,37,500/-. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles ^w^ '^. '^l' "t^^^ -^.: 8. 9. Act has been granted by the Tribunal. There were three trucks involved in the accident but the owner, driver and insurance company ofrest ofthe two trucks (Nos. C.G. 12-C/9363 and C.G. 12-C/9958) have not been impleaded as party to the proceedings. There was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the other two trucks. Learned Claims Tribunal has not conducted any enquiry to know the truth, however, it was the duty of learned Claims Tribunal to find out whether there was composite negligence or contributory negligence on the part of owner/driver of the other two trucks, involved in the accident, which were standing on the road. This all has not been decided. It is evident that although learned Claims Tribunal had framed the issue in regard to the question whether the driver, owner and insurance company of other two trucks <vere necessary party to the proceedings or not and has answered the issue as not proved, but learned Tribunal has not framed the issue in regard to composite negligence or contributory negligence on the part of other two trucks. It appears that the Tribunal has not conducted a proper enquiry as provided under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 ofthe M.P./C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. In view of the foregoing, we allow all the three appeals in part, set aside the impugned award dated 21.2.2011 and remit back the matter to the Claims Tribunal to consider and decide afresh in the light of the observations made herein above. No order as to costs. 10. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal on merits. ^, si. -^.y ^-^^' 11. Further, needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall make an endeavor to decide the claim petitions afresh, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. 12. Parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 17th January, 2012. 13. The amount, if any, deposited with the Tribunal shall remain in fbced deposit scheme of any nationalized bank, if not already disbursed, till fresh decision is taken by the Tribunal. 14. The lower Court records shall be sent back forthwith. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur