-=1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEALS fCI N0. 'tn3 /2011. w,'lsion Benct MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1?88 APPELLANT yfnsvKBR RESPONDENTS ^CLAIMANTS ^ l^s*." ..,.-- ^•""^\ ...•""^ .-•"". \^' A' DRIVER OWNER 'Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through its legal Manager, 4th floor, shop No. 412,413, Ravi Bhawan, Near Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil & Distrrct- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Smt. Sarita Dewangan, W/o Om Prakash Dewangan aged about 30 years, ^ 2^. Komal Dewangan, S/o- Om Prakash Dewangan aged about 7 years, 3. Jeet Dewangan, S/o- Om Prakash / Dewangan aged about 3 years, 4^-Smt. Saato Bai Dewangan, Widow of Samaru Ram Dewangan aged about 60 years, (Respondent no. 2 and 3 being minor represented through mother respondentno. 1) All R/o- Behind Mahamaya Mandir, Ward No. 18, Newra, Thana - Newra, District- Raipur (C.G.) 6y- Ganga Prasad Banjare S/o- Sadhram / Banjare,-.R/o- Village- Kheli, Thana- Suhela, District- Raipur (C.G.) ^•' M/s,,,.-Mata .Road Carrier, through- Director/Manager, M/s Mata Road Carrier, Shop No. 2, Jain Complex, Tatibandh, Raipur, Thana- Amanaka, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) w APPEAL_VALUED AT RS. 4,06,000/- >^-<' COURT FEE AFFIXED Rs:~15/- ^ COURT OF'CHHATr-ISGARH AT BILASPUR EE.A. (Cl N0. 479 OF 2011 *3^^?^'»^ ^ ^ ^r ^&T^fl^ ^ Tn ?::•?•?rpr Reliaiice Geiieral Iiisui'aiice CnTnr'-p,nv T .-i m-it^rl ••ss"—^-—— — Vk^sfa-t..^^.°a.vs~i'a~^'^-!r/w\f^ srui. HariLa jjewaiigan aiiu nt^-f^rs as. wn.-s-a a. v- •s-vs.w^."'*.'?-^. i-ti—it^^niT^^a.-.kV < ^»<^& .rf~».,T-<^ j^'l'SrV!-^ WWrf^./ytrfBSk»-B. AmUAii UUUBK QEX^i'iUn if'ia Ur" 'i'slE, r^f^j^ t£S^J^. AA tii^-E^.fc-rt^S .?S:'».^& ^ .fc ^'0@ Division BeacnsHon'bie Shri I.M. Qudausi & Hn*'?hi«>Shfl fi- 1W|nlia<H.1(!In. ,T,T_ Prcsent; Shri Sourabh Shaniia, counsel for the RDDellsnt. iNOiie lor ine responaentS uiougu servea. .T^TS A T .?^;'T3T^"E?-'ES ?wF£SX?JC*£%. -^"L-^<^'? »1, tl. None for uie respondents No. 1 to 6 tiiough served. mereiore, we proceeu ex-pane agaiiisi inern. ^,. rieara. 3. Tlils appeal has been filed against tiie iiapugned awar'u dated 17-02-2011 passeu by uie Tenth Additional Motor Accldent Clalius TriuLUial, Ralpui' (for shor't 'U.ie T'ribiiiial) in Clalm Case No. 19/2010 by the appeuaiiL/ uisurance L^ornpaiiy, ui so lai' as 11 rej.aies 10 laSLening uie uaouiy- 10 pay coiiipensauon 10 uic respondents/claimaiits upon tlie appellaiit/Insui'aiice Cornpariy, joiatly and severally. t. unei lacis 01 uie' case, accura.uig LO claL.iiaiits/respondents ai'e fhat deceased —Ornpraka.sh jjewaiigan was wor'iang ui ine jeep ueai'ing regisu'auon No. C.G. 04-ZD/5199, as driv'er. On 29-11-2009 at about y:^-r-ii%>. '•St^aS^ J 1'»<«?' 8-15 P.M., Near' Village Moi'iregaon the salu Jeep wuile it was stationaiy, was dashed by fuc' otiendiug veiTlcle /m.—-_--i-\-!-._- ^- .-? .-..^, .^^..^i^;-'-.^^-^* -.,- -^.r-. -<*i /~i^ TA t ^M~i^'>/~\ J1-.-.- ('lTuc&j ue&i'mg regisu-auon NO. ij.u. Ut-dA/yoou aue ro f'ash and negligent ufiviiig of uie cuiver of fhe offendliig veUcle, as a result of wl'iich the deceaseu succuiiibed to ttie injunes receivecl by iiuu In ttie accicient. 5. The clalmants had Sled a petition LUider Section 166 of fuc Motor Veliicles Act (for short ^fae Act'j before uie Triounal claiming total amouiit ot coiiipensation ol i-7 ,^T/> l~li/^../\ / KS./,/'t,UUU/-. 6. Learned couiisel for fhe appeuaiit has speciticaily raised tfae contention that since Uic cheque was bounceu, fhe policy was caiicelled before the date of accident. /. we nave perusea uie recoru 01 uie inDunai as v»reuas tiie impugned award auu found that. no issue regar'diug uOLuicing oi cheque arid caiicellation ot Gic uisuraiice policy to fhe owner of tfae ouenuiug vehicle was u'amed. •n^. o. riavuig regara 10 uie lacis ariu cu'cuiiisi.ances 01 uie case, we ar'e 01 uie opuiion uiar uie inaiier requues reconslder'ation at fhe end of the Tribui'ial. Therefore, wc allow fhis appeal in pai't, set aside flie iBipugneu awai'u and reniit back fhe niatter to tue Tribunal for decision. afr^sh. Learned Tribunal shall franie the issue regaTding whether on tlie date of acGident there was aiiy uisurance policy in accordaiice with law aiiu whether the cheque was bounced aiid the policy was cariceUcd Luider' uie uituiiation ro uie owner/UT.surea. 9. Ncculess to niention uiat tuc pai'ties sliaii be provided opportLuuty to aiiiend fhe pleadings, adduce further evldence, file documents or get the docurnents veruiea eTC., on issues on uic uasis 01 ine F'leaalugs •^•"•.listaiis^ \ „ .•^•Ss^'^^ _^;-:^fli^. •••;'.. lil IBs€S®i&i '^^ '^^•^^^'^f'' '^ ^iy. f^'".- 's^^yi'-'' already on recor'u and fiiereafter, awai'd shali be niade airesn. 10. Tlie r'ecorus of the Tribunal shaU be sent back wiuiour aiiy luruier' ueiay. 11. 'l'uc auiount ciepositcu uy tu.e appeuant sliall be kept ln a tixed ueposit in any Nationallzed Baiik for a perlod of one yeai", which shall be subject to (lie decision offiie case. iz. iio oi'uer as LO COSTS. ._-- —- Sd/- .... ^Sd/-^ r,.Mtoha}Uddin I.M.Quddusi ^- '""jud&e Judge