c,^(J ^' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal {C} No. VLI^ /2008 Oivi^Ioi Sssiu.. APPELLANT Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office- 4th Floor, Ravi Bhavan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Ganeshia Bai Wd/o Late Doman Lal Sahu, aged about 23 years, Ku. Yashoda D/o Late Doman Lal Sahu, aged about 02 years, Ku. Dolly D/o Late Doman Lal Sahu,aged about 01 year, Smt. Birajo Bai Wd/o Late Gangaram, aged about 60 years, Respondent no. 2 & 3 minor represented through natural guardian mother Smt. Ganeshia Bai, All R/o Village Polkarra, Thana Rajim, District Raipur (C.G.) (CLAIMANTSl Vedram Sahu S/o Gangaram, aged about 20 years, R/o Village Polkarra, post Penda, Thana Rajim, District Raipur (C.G.) fOWNER OF MOTORCYCLE N0. CG-04- CY-0697) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 ASAMENDED BY ACT OF 1994 RESPONDENTS V '^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. fC) No. 1453 of 2008 Appellant Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Smt. Ganeshia Bai 85 others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri S. S. Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Jamil Akhter Lohani, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 5. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 17th day ofJanuary, 201JL) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - Insurance Company against the impugned Judgment/award dated 6.9.2008, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariaband, District -- Raipur in Claim Case No. 27/2008. 2. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 19.12.2007 at about 2.30 p.m. deceased Domanlal was going to Panduka from Polkarra on a motorcycle, bearing registration No. C.G. 04/CY-0697. At that time near Khatti turning, tyre of the motorcycle got burst; thereby the motorcycle got out of control and fell down on the road. As a result of this accident Domanlal received various injuries and during treatment in the M.M.I. hospital at Raipur from 19.12.2007 to 26.12.2007, he succumbed to the injuries. The claimants being legal heirs of the deceased Domanlal filed a claim case under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 20,70,OOO/- under various heads. ^^, .^€S2S^ /y^ \ i fc^.i:^. l 1 ^^ 1 v^-y ';%^^ 3. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,90,686/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application, holding that the non-applicants are liable to pay the amount of compensation, jointly and severally. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the proceedings against the Insurance Company were held ex-parte. However, ih the appeal the Insurance Company has challenged the liability as the risk of the deceased was not covered under the policy and also the driving licence was not found to be in the name of the deceased but the Insurance Company was deprived of filing of evidence as it was held as ex-parte. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Insurance Company should be granted one more opportunity to plead its case; Therefore, we allow this appeal in part, set-aside the impugned judgment/ award dated 6th September, 2008 and remit the matter back to the Tribunal fo consider and decide afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and opportunity lead evidence. to 7. We hereby clarify that we have not considered the case of either of the parties on merits one way or the other and the Tribunal has to decide the case on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties to adduce further evidence, amend pleadings, file documents or get the documents verified etc. \ /r"'- ,; :fc-a, l '-^tes^" ^ 8. The amount of compensation which has been deposited by the Insurance Company shall remain in deposit till the matter is decided afresh by the Tribunal. 9. It is expected that the Tribunal would expedite the hearing and decide the claim petition, as indicated above, within a reasonable period. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs. 11. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from the Tribunal, forthwith^ Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur