^^ ^ .^f ^- IN THE HI6H COURT JUMCATURE AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal [C]Np^ J 03Jw OF 2009 @" ° APPELLANT INSURER •},y-- ,...A¥i "" » 's ^",..,^ Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, •ff'l. (o%^.h"^^>'^~> s'1"/mo^arl Bhawan, Vidhansabha f,t>* Marg, Pandri, Raipur (C.6.) ^^•:i¥\^ia'- ..-^^^ ?^~'. „.»»»>••' RESPON&ENTS CLAIMANT '';'-• 2. 3. ^ Versus !.„ Bhojbai Dhruv, W/o tate Nemichand Dhruv, aged about 25 years Kumari Falguni b/o late Nemichand Dhruv, aged about 07 years Kumari Uttara &/o late Nemichand Dhruv, aged about 03 years 4. (Sodaiya Bai, Aged about 55 years, W/o Shri Shambhu Dhruv, 5. Shambhu Dhruv, Aged about 60 years, S/o Bhobhit Dhruv, All R/o VillageA (Sram-Kotadadar, Thana-Pithora, Tahsil and District-Mahasaniund (C.6.) 6. Nemichand Dewangan, S/o Chedilal Dewangan, Aged about 42 years, R/o Pateuva, P.0- Patewa, Tahsil <& District- Mahasamund (C.6.) Driver; 7. Ramprasad Patel , S/o Damrudhar Patael, Age^^ssa^-'esm^ews, R/o Sram-Pali, P.0- Patewa, Tahsil & District-Mahasamund (C.S.)Owner: •*5-% -y. --P— ^ APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT_A6AINST THE AWARb/OROER DATE& 03^03.2009 PASSE& BY. THE MOTOR ACCI&ENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL MAHASAMUN& (C.6.) IN C.T.NO. 152/2008 ft.. '"5ft~> //^ '^ ^i^Spi^. 'i' ;^-.^^' :• • ^"^-..'•/> <^p!-^g HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARJI : BILASPUR M. A. fC) No. 1036 of 2009 Appellant Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Bhojbai Dhruv 8s others MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173_QETHE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT^_1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s HonT3le Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Jamil Akhter Lohani, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 5. None for the respondents No. 6 and 7. ORDER (Orall ( Passed on this 20U1 day of July, 2011 ) PerI. M. Quddusi J. The instant appeal, filed by the appellant/Insurance Company arises from the award dated 3.3.2009, passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasainund in Claim Case No. 152/2008, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,44,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The ground of challenge in this appeal is so far as the Tribunal has imposed the liability to pay compensation upon the ^ appellant/Insurance Company. The facts, in brief, are that on 9.3.2008 at abaut 6.30 p.m. the deceased Nemichand Dhruv was going on his motorcycle^to village Ramkheda from village Potadadar. At that time, the Tractor - Trolley, bearing registration No. C.G. 06-B/3477 and C.G. 04/8570, which was being driven by the non-applicant No.l ( Nemichand Devangan) in a rash and negligent manner hit the rnotorcycle from the opposite direction. As a result of this accident Nemichand Dhruv received grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries on 17.3.2008. The legal heirs ofthe deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 19,00,000/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and fhe evidence on record awarded a sum of Rs. 5,44,000/- as compensation along with simple interest @ 6% per annuin. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court's record. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a contention that the alleged accident was occurred on 9.3.2008, whereas the cash amount was received by the insurance agent on 7.3.2008, issuing a cover note, but in fact the amount was deposited in the office of the Insurance Company on 13.3.2008. Thus, it is apparent that the insured in collusion with the insurance agent has got issued the cover note on 7.3.2008 by paying the cash amount, however, the insurance agents are not entitled to take cash amount and they are entitled to take cheque only. Even if the cash ainount was received by the insurance agent on 7.3.2008, it ought to have been deposited in the office of the Insurance Company on 7.3.2008 itself. It is the case of the appellant that it could not lead proper evidence to indicate that in fact the policy was obtained on 13U1 March, -3008 and has been shown ante dated. This has been done hi collusion-"with the insurance agent by the insured. In view of the above we are of the opinion that fhe matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal. If the policy has been obtained by fraud no benefit can be given to the insured of the insurance policy, when it is proved that on the dafe of the accident there was no insurance of the vehicle. 8. It will also be open for the insurance company to take action against its agent as learned counsel submitted that the amount received by the agent should have been deposited within 24 hours in the office and if it is treated as ta-ue that the amount was received by the agent on 7th Mareh, 2008 by cash and was deposited on 13U1 March, 2008 in the office and if it is found that the agent has committed fraud also it will also be open for the Insurance Company to take appropriate action against ernng persons. 9. Therefore, in view of what has been observed by this Court hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideradon at the end of the Tribunal. If required, the Tribunal may conduct an enquiiy as provided under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the M.P./C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 to ascertain the truth. 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we allow this appeal in part, set-aside the impugned award dated 3.3.2009 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh in view of the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs. 11. 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. 12. Parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 17ih August, 2011. 13. The lower Courts record shall be sent back forthwith. Sd/- G-Mtobaiuddto Thakur I.M.Quddussi Judge Jud&<