ggM^Sg p R^Mfy 't! ''•i-/i; fc,-3 Ei=iB Eb.-/ L'a^i i; \;i ^eb';;.' ^ IN THE HI6H COURT JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal [c] No. 3>^-7- OF-SeOT- Z<-4?f? APPELLANT (Insurer) RESPONDENTS: Claimant Driver of vehicle CS 10 A 4176 Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through the Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, Rama trade center opposite Rajeev Plaza near bus stand Bilaspur (C6) ^ ^ Owner of vehicle c610A^y ^ 9?' 1. Sant Ram Uike S/o Bidhun Singh, Age 35 years R/o Village- Basha P.S. Seepat District Bilaspur C.G. 2. Manoj das ©Vinod das S/o Vishnu das mahant R/o Village Limha P.S. Ratanpur District Bilaspur C.6. 3. Koushal Kumar Soni S/o (Sanga Prasad Soni R/o Village + post office Beltara P.S> Ratanpur Ciistrict Bilaspur C.6. -3 .s^ ^^. v^' .--""^ "^J\y' .tfr*' ;*' AS^ :AC? ^" .<--" \ APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT A6AINST THE AWARD/ORbER &ATED 29.8.2007^PASSED BY SHRI M.&. JAGbALLA. THE AQQmOffAL MOTOR ACCIOENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BILASPUR. (C.6.) IN C.T.NO.60/07 ^' Appeal valued at Rs.20,OOQ/- <& Court Fee affixed Rs.15/- BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ^ HIGH COKRT GP CHHATHSG&RH, BILASPUR &PPELLAHT: Hon'bte 1.1 Hon'ble G. MAtCI. Mo. 259/2008 , JJ The Oriental Insurauce Coinpany Ltd. ,Vs. SintLaxinia Bai and ofhers APPSELLANT: RESPONDBNTS: M.Afa.No.366/2008 The Oriental Insuraace Coinpaiiy Ltd. Vs. Kheai Singh aad others The Oriental Insurance Coinpany Ltd. Vs. Saatram Uike and others The Oriental Insiiraace Contpaay Ltd. Vs. Diil Siugh and oftiers MISC. APPEAL UHDER SBCTIQN 173 OF 'IWB MOTOR VBHICLESB ACT. 1988 \; Mr. Ablushek Siaha, couasel fbr fh.e AppeUant lasuraace Coinpany in aU fhe appeals. ,Mr. Gautam. Kheteapal, couasel for fhe claunants/respondents 2&3iriM.A(C). .1y P<er I.M. OUDDUSI. J. 1. ORAL ORDBR (06.07.2011) ^ !\! Siuce these appeals arise out of the sam.e accident inet with by Metador bearing Regu. No. C.G.10-A/4I76, they are being disposed of by tTiis couunon order. The Additional Motor Accideut Claims Tribuoal, Bilaspur, has passed separate awards on 29.8.2007 ia different claim cases. 2. M.A(C).No. 259/2008 relates to Claim Case No.64/2007 ffled by fhe legal representatives of fhe deceased i.e., Siat Laxmia Bai aad others. M.A(q. 366/2007 relates to CIaim Case No.62/2007 fited by clailBant iujured Khem. Siagh. M.A(C). 367/2008 relates to claim Case No.60/2007 filed by fhe claimant iajured Santrani Uike. M.A(q. 368/2008 relates to Claim Case No.65/2007 by the claunaat iajured Dul Siagh. 3. Brief facts of fhe case as per the version of ibe claimaats are that on 05.11.2005 the claimants/deceased were teaveliag as labourers in Metador 407 beanag Regu.No. C.G.10-A/4176. Thcy were going fix>in Chaudrapur to Beltara. On fhe way at about 4.00 p.ia. at viBage Hareti. near Usban caaal, the said vehicle which was aUegedly driven by non-appUcaut no. 1 ia rash aad negligent m.auner turaed turtle. as a resiilt of which deceased Ram Kuinar died during fhe course of treatment whereas the other claunants have sustained iujuries and becanae pennanently disabled. 4. The Clafans Tribimal haviag regaid to the facts situation and evidence on record has awarded coxapensations to fhe claima^ts holdiug that the Vetucle ia question was iuvolved in ftie acfcident, as a result ofwbich, Ratukumar died and other claunauts sustauied iajurics and becaine pennanenfty disabled. 5. .Learued coitnsel for fhe appeUaat submits that ttie witnesses were Tsady to be examiaed and aa appUcation was inoved •^ 7 7-1- ••"-f N. Rao \ before fhe date of aiyuinents about ttus fact wifh a prayer that evidence of the Insuraace Coinpauy be recorded but fhe Tribuiial disinissed tfae appUcation. Prior to that also th.e Insurauce Compaay moved au appUcation seeking time to adduce evidence on the grouad fhat the Officer who had to appear for gwiag evMence had goiie out of station for soiue personal reason but that appHcatiou was also disnussed. 6. On pen^sal of the records offbe Claims Tribunal we have fouad that tlie Tribunal has fi-amed bnly two issues i.e.. whefher the deafh was due to fhe accident as a result of rash aad negligent driviag of non-appUcant no.l and the second issue is wifh regard to the quaatuin. However. the Tribunal has not framed the maiu. issues as to whefher the deceased or the uyzired claimaats were the aufhorized representatives of the owner of goods or the employees or gratuitous passengers; whefher the goods were loaded iu tbe Metadoi; whether it was a package poUcy and the iujured and deceased were covered by the package poUey or not. 7. In view of thc above facts aad circiuu.stances, we are of fhe opiuion that the matter requires reconsideratmn at fhe eud of the Tribunal. Therefore, we aUow fhis appeal ia ^ --"t and reinit the inatteis back to fhe CIaims Tribuaal for decision afcsh. 8. Needless to niention that the parties shaU be aUowed to ainend fhe pleadings, adduce ftu-fher evidence, file the documents or eet the documents ven&ed ete aad thereafter the decision shaU tie taken afiresh at fhe earliest. The records of fhe Tribuaal shaU. be sent back without furfher delay. The parties shall appear toefi)re thfi Tribunal on 05tfaAugust, 2011. 9. The amouut which has already been deposited by tbe AppeUaat shall remain ia fixed deposit with any Nationalized Bank tfll the fresb decisioa is taken by fhe Tribunal. 10. In tbe result, fhe appeals are allowed ia part No order as to _jcoste.— ( S^. Sd/- i G.MinhajJudin I.M.Quddusi ; Judge Judge