5-j ^ ^' sron BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR MISC. APPEAL(C) N0.6% OF 2001 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 3,15,000/- (RUPEES THREE IACS FIFIEEN THOUSAND ONLY Appellant Non-Applicant No. 3 ,"nte*w -^. ..5-^y:~-^v Respondent No. 1 Applicant The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.Thakkar Chambers, Power House, Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg through the Branch ^•z-Manager, New India Assurance "^"" O »ywn">"''' Company Ltd. Opposite Rajiv &-)^ Plaza, Near Bus Stand, Bilaspur. Versus Sudhanshu Das, S/o Haradhan Das, aged 10 years (Minor) through his father Haradhan Das, S/o K.P. Das, aged about 50 years, R/o Quarter no. 10- B, Street no. 3, Sector-1, Bhilainagar, Tehsil & District-Durg (Chhattisgarh) t^ Respondent No. 2 Non-Applicant No. 1 Respondent No. 3 Non-Applicant No. 2 Krishna Nirmalkar, .S/o Premlal Nirmalkar, aged about 25 years, R/o Aryanagar, Kohka, P.S. Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Principal, Krishna Public School, Nehrunagar, P.S. Supela-Bhilai, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) Being aggrieved by the award dated 29.09.2007 passed in Motor Accident Claim No. 49/2005 by the IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (Chtiattisgarh) between the parties Sudhanshu Das' Vs. Krishna Nirmalfcar and 2 others, .the Appellant begs to prefer this appeal on the following facts and grounds amongst others. \ f £, - § &K-!S8iSt ;<%B^S^S! ^yV HIGH CO'OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR •A. (Cl N0. 08 OF 2008 Tlie Braiicli Maiiager, New hidia Assurance Company Ltd. '*»•**>• ^t Versys Sudliaiisliu Das aiid ouiers. APPEAL SECTION1730FMOTORVEHICLES , 19i Division BenchsHon'bie Shri I.Iu, Quddusi& Kon'bie Q. Mlchaluddia. JT T !<J, :: Sliri DasFu'ath Gupta, counisel for fhe appeUant. Sl^i'i P.R. Patankai', comisel for- Respondent No. 1. Sliri Shrawan Agrawal, counsel for' r'espondents No. 2 & 3. (Passed on lStil day ofjune, 2011) Per I.M. QuAdusL <J. Heard. 2. Tliis appeal has been flled agalnst fhe u'npugned awai-u dated 29-09-2007 passed by Foui'tii Additional Motor Accident Claiais Tribunal, Durg (for short the Tribm-ial) m Claim Case 49/2005 by the appeUaiit/ Insurance Company whereby aiid whereuiider the liabulty upon the appeUant/Insurance Company to ' pay conipensation in favoiu' of t.he claiuiant. 3. Brief facts of tfae case are fhat on 30-06-2003, clainiant Sudhaiishu Das, who was a student of 5th Class hi Ki'islina PLiblic School, Nelii'u Nagai', BhUai, was returniiig from School to liis home by bus bearing registi'ation. No. C.G. 07-ZA/0580 along with other- students. . Qn fhe way neai' Nehru Nagai' crossing, the saiu bus luet with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its d-E'iver, as a result of wliich flie claknaiit Sudhaiishu Das sustained grievous uijuTies in fhe saicl acciaeriL. 4. The clalmanit had Qled a petition uiider Section 166 of fhe Motor Veliicles Act (for short the Acf) before flie Tribunal clauuing total aniount of compensation of Rs.3,34,700/- under various heads. 5. The learned Tribunal on a close scrutuiy of evldence led, material placed and subniissions made by fhe partles, has awarded a sum of Rs.3,15,OOC'/- along wifh uiterest @ 9% per aiinum. for fhe mjuries sustained by l~iiin in the 6. We have perused the records of the Tribunal and found fhat la fhe msuraace pollcy the foUowing was iiientloned fhat the poiicy covers use only i.uider a permit wltliiu tl-ic meanuig of fiie Motor VeMcles Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the Motor Veliicles Act, 1988." 7. The Claims Tribuiial in its award has not decided the issue whether the bus was haviiig a valid and eflfective permit on the date of accident or not? Therefore, we are of the opuilon tfaat it is a fit case to reiuit fhe matter back to tlie Tribuiial to decide such issue aiid tliereafter, make an award. 8. In view of the above, we aUow fhis appeal in part aiid set aslde ti.ie award impugiied dated 29-09-2007 aiid remit flie matter back to tlie Tribuiial for decidmg flie aforesaid issue afr-esh. 9; Needless to meution that fhe parties shall be allowed to auiend fhe pleadings, adduce further evidence, file Socuments or get fhe documents verifled etc., and ffrT]T ."''• -^i^fc. ^, '•'• ^,.-^. '<ia'1 fuereafter, decision shaU be taken as eariy as possible. Parties sKall appear before fhe Tribunal on 25.07.2011. The records of the Tribunal sliaB be sent forthwitii. No oraer as TO COST.S. 12. The amount wliich has already been deposited by the appeUant sliaU remain ia deposlt UU a declsion is taken afresh——i - ' —- Sd/- l.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge K:-. J.