\^ ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G) Misc. Appeal {C} No. 12007 "S3]BS!iiri> i'ta'.1?!!" —K^SiU APPELLANT Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager Branch Office,Shiv Mohan Bhawan,Pandri, Raipur Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) (N.A. No. 2 Insurer) Versus RESPONDENTS Likhanram S/o Shri Revalal Parmar, Aged about 03 years, Minor Represented Through natural guardian father Shri Revalal S/o Shri Madhoram Marar, R/o Singarpur, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Claiinant) Ramesh Kumar @ Lala Tiwari, S/o Shri Chandrapal Tiwari, Aged about 41 years, R/o Bahadurganj, Ward No. 14, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) (N.A. No.l Driver & Owner) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 XI-HC-78 3i1^TqiT^FIW (raran^r^'n'* ~\. <41^dlsti*iict> ^a' '^i'illd'si, d'Tn'M^l'i, Ri'titiy ..^.^A^p.?;^ W[ 200^. 3<1^1 4d* (<^3^T) dt,W\v\<5\-f IIKdTfffa^ <l»f^l< ^a.ri^iTsn^T ?T<fRKaf?cT3I^T 28.^2-2007 Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, ^ounselfor the appellant. Heard on I.A.No.597/20p7 v/hich is an application for exemption from filing certified (;opy of the order passed under Section-170 of the Motor Vehicle ^ct, 1988. Shri Sachin Singh Rajput,] iearned counse' for the appe!lant submitted that the appellant-insjjrer did fiis an application under Section-170 of the Motor Vehici^ Act for permission to contest the ciaim on al! grounds that are av^iiable to person against whom ths ciaim are made but no order w4s passed thereon by the ieamed Motor Accident CIaims Tribuna!. !t is realiy unfortunate that (he learned Motor Accident Claims Tribuna! dio' nof pass any order on|the appilcation filed under Section- 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1f88. It is the duty of the Wotw Accident Ciaims Tribuna! to oass al the Motor Vehicie Act after satisfyl befrween the person ma.king the judiciai order under Sectson-170 of ng itself that (a) there is coilusion iim and the person aoainst whom the ciaim is made, or (b) a persor] against whom the ciairn is made has faiied to contest the claim. !t| is oniy upon being satisfied that either of the two conditions menti^ned above exist that ths right to contest the application on al! groun^s that are avaliable to any person against whom the claim has bse|i mads, may be granted to the 'nsurer. It is being noticed {hat the W extremely casual in their approa; rtor Accident Ciaims Tribunais are |i while deciding Shs appiicatjorL XI-HC-78 3n^T^)^iN) (raTsn^r^w *11+1^rT Sh*4ich 3^ •^wifi-M, »Tnyi<o,Ridiy^<. 4^1ch *******»^*k±^^* * * • * »* (^ Sll^l 4a<ti (l{cli^°l<^T) ^Rnwgfergn^r—2_. under Section-170 of the Mot Accident CIairns Tribunal shoul under Sectlon-170 of Motor Vet the prssent case, the appiicatl under Section-170 of the Motor Accident C'aims Tribunal ought above situation. The maxim "ac into play in such a situation that the inaction of the Court or procedure established by taw. A perusa! of the copy under Section-170 of Motor appe!ianV!nsurer before the !ea does not discSose anv ground fd application under Section-166 The owner'driyer of the vehicle allegations. The insurance of thi| apDellant. The contention that tt co-opsrating wifh the appellantf fail under either of the categori4 Vehicie Act and therefore coulc) made out to grant permission i|i application on ail grounds av^i dated 18-06-2006 was thus iiab) circumstance met Section-170 of Motor Vehicle ft qiPlfepfrr ITFRrFtf tefl-<^RZK ^3tRpTSn^T :br Vehicle Act. The Searned Motor hasten to allow the application fiSed jcle Act, 1988 sn a casuai manner. !n •|i having besn filed by the applicant IVehicle Act, 1988, the learned Motor ]:o have decided the appiication in the tus curiae neminem aravabif comes |no party could be forced to suffer for omission to act gccording to the ^f the appiication dated 1 6-06-2006 Vehide Act, 1988 filed by ths rned Motor Accident Claims Tribuiia! permitting the insurer to contest She Motor Vehicts Act on ail arounds. 'ad fiied written statement denying ali Motor cycie was not disputed by the is owner/driver of ths vehicie was not Snsurer was suDerfSuous and did not s (a) and (b) of Section-170 of Motor not be accepted. Thus no cass was the aDpe!!ant/!nsurer fo contest the lable to the owner. The application to be rejected. itioned above, since no ordsr under ;t was passed bv the Motor AccidenL XI-HC-78 3^ ^{WM-'i, »Tfl+ri6, fS|dl'y^< 2-^g/ ;Tn;A-.J.CJ.M0.^ ***»+*•»*» <\* * ^* * * »« » t » HWWI Sb*<|ch Sll^l Maq»(yii^qqiT) ^ 200^2 sn^T^rf^iR; craT3TT^Tsb11°b s^iTWHferw^r —3> ctii<<f<'i41-i iiHdTTffe'-ifl <Riwi< ^sri^iTsn^r ^- Claims Tribunal, I.A.No.597/20 copy of the order passed under 1988 is altowed. Atso heard on admission. |7 for exemption from filing certified Bection-170 ofthe Motor Vehlcle Act. irief facts are that the years was being taken by his au reached near the bridse at G! herein drove motorcvcle bearind rash or nsgilgent manner and d( applicant resulting in fracture humorous bone of the rigi the bone, the right paim of the iearned Motor Accident C!aims of Rs.2,15,000/-, fhe break-up o1 icant Likhan Ram, aged about 3 |nt for ca!l of nature at 6 P.M. As they ^paipur Khurd, the respondent No.2 Registration No.C.G.-09-A/2492 in a d^shed against the minor child i.e. ths in both hands. Due to the injury; was fractured. Due to mal union of ^pplicant was rendered useless. The [Tribunai awarded total compensation which is as foilows:- 'nanU (1) (2) (3) •Towards loss of ea| Expenses incyrred| Expenses incurredl and heaithy diet Fv rnini during treatment- towards attsndant towards pain and (5) Sufferin< Expenses towards Rs. 90,000/- Rs. 10,000,'- ) Rs. 1Q,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs.2,15,000/- T>T:0: ^ XI-HC-78 *11*1CTI Sh^lcb 3^ '<inwtl, axflw'Ko, Rldltiy __ ^.A.^-^No.^^ ^^. ........^...........y^ ^ ^ 200^ 3ii^l 4ach (lic<i^<sl^!iT) siT^r^rf^irsf; PT^TTSTI^T^TP ??<IRKHf5(T3n^T —- ^raferitrWR^if^'tetA'rf^re?R ^Slf^q-gn^T •rf A tota! sum of Rs. 2,15, The ieamed M.A.C.T. held t! important part of a person's b( treatment and althouah the fati sum of Rs.3 lakh wbuid be treatment, the iearned Motor sumofRs.1 Lakh oniy. AIthough the appellant't" since his application under S< liabie to rejection, yet in the fs shall proceed to consider whetl Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal The on!y ground urged by leai during arguments in this apps awarded by the learned Motos treatment was excessive and wi young boy of 5 years. Due to S\ has been completely rsndered finoers he cannot even !ift a SD< bone ofthe risht hand. Permanl of the clalmant testified that trel Lakh towards future treatmeit Dr. R Mandale A.W.-2 has statf cannot be said that the fatherl chances snd would not incur |00/- was awarded as compensation. iat the riaht hand bsina the most |dy, the appiicant wouid continue the ;r of the applicant had stated that a ^quired towards expenses in future ^cident CSaims Tribunal awarded a |surer could not be heard on quantum lction-170 of Motor Vehicle Act was lcts and cireumstances of the case ! |er the compensation awardsd by the Isjustand reasonable cornpsnsation. |ied counse! for the appeiiant-lnsurer tai is that an amount of Rs.1 Lakh Accident Ciaims Tribunai for future iol1y unjustified. The claimant is now a ;e accident, the paim of his rlght hand iseless and using his damaged (tilted) aon due to ma! union of the humorous int disability has been caused. Father itment is continuing and clalmed Rs.3 it. Mereiy because Medica! Officer id that there is no possibility of cure it of the appllcant would not take any sny expenditure tov.'ards treatment in, ^ XI-HC-78 wraf^tFtaitii^ a%I[r<ri>i<ii!a<(^W!Bytt®,nRt<"ii»Ij,< __,.'M,,A;fc5M^iE^ q^...,.-;,».^-..;i^.:-^.,.',-;^p^^--g.^^ ^ii:i^4att»^^H^^BI^ an^r ^irf^Ucbii tW^I^I StiMJ4i p' iumans fiss;! 'ft 'fT'^'.ITT FiteTp'RS ffPITE Vl^'rt- -!^S\W HfSff 3:n^T C)J':i future because so much medics the right hand of a yjoung boy due to the accident, it is sai continue to avai! sudi advance minor child to make the reasoning on wH ths iearned Motor expenses cannot b< In this view of which is accordine The applicati^ stands dismissed. use ot nis r ly|d ;ertifed copy as per ruie: .^ ich compe Aceident ted wW the matte; ilsmissed ;n M.(C.)F ^iP)f?pfrT WRlt'fr'felA Wfi f,'swJWf^ sri^irsn^r il advancement has taken |as been compietely rends ^ to presume that his ^; ^reatment In future so as 11 laht hand as he arows. In hss.tion of Rs.1 Lakh v/asi l^ iaims Tribunai for fuS; \, there is no substance ii) this appeai at the stage of admission. I.No.377'2007 for grant [B|KStt T?*TF£ ,'5Tp~re R'sITSr Iplace. Since sred useless iathsr wouid enable his Shat contexS, lawarded by iire medicai Sd/- D ^b Judge_ P.T.O.