Cl- lS:-/- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) No.- 1^0 12009 3 @ ^9 3¥1SII APPELLANT ^'[.^ ..^^'-.. ^^ r»T ^-•":.. '^ '::.^ T^'^ '^- ..y v.y v^ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MADINA MANZIL JAIL ROAD KUTCHERY CHOWK, RAIPUR, PRESENT ADDRESS, DIVISIONAL OFFICE OLD R.T.O.OFFICE, RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOWK, G.E. ROAD, DURG, TEH. AND DISTRICT DURG. Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS :- RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS :-1. SWATI NISHA TIWARI W/0 LATE YOGESH TIWARI, AGE 27 YRS. RESIDENT OF SHANTI NAGAR, NEAR RAM MANDIR, RAIPUR, TEH.AND DISTRICT -RAIPUR. 2. ARNAV TIWARI S/0 LATE YOGESH TIWARI AGE 07 MONTH, RESIDENT SHANTI NAGAR, NEAR RAM MANDIR, RAIPUR.[-r ^^/ Hffr^/^P^ fi^/^^N ^^-rfii^^ ^^ffr^- ^-sLsyff - -rf^ff/{-^ ^Y/II/^ 3. CHARANJIT SINGH PARMAR S/0 LATE MAHENDRA SINGH PARMAR, RESIDENT C-3 SECTOR-4 UDYAN SOCIETY, HEERAPUR, RAIPUR P.S. AMANAKA TEH. AND DISTRICT- RAIPUR. 4. AWTAR SINGH SAINY S/0 KARNAIL SINGH SAINY RESIDENT-M.I.G.25 HEERAPUR RAIPUR, TEH. AND DISTRICT RAIPUR. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 ^' ^ •1: ^.;•^. HJGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.MJ2UDDUSJ & HON'BLEMR.G.IVIINS-IAJUDDSN.JJ. M.A.rc1No.1S60/2009 ADpeJIant ResDondents Claimants Vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Distt. Durg(C©) Swati Nisha Tiwari and others ' Present: Mr. SudhJrAgrawal, counsel for the appellant/insurance company. Mr. BS Khanuja, counsel for the respondents No.l 1 & 2. Mr. MPS Bhatia, counsel forrespohdents No. 3 & 4. 3RDER(Oran (9th August, 2911) Per J.SVI.Quddusl.J: 1. This appeal has been fiied by the appeljanVinsurance company against the award of the 9th Additional Motor Acddent Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg (in short "the Tribunaj"), dated 31st August, 2009 passed in ClajmCase N6.37/08, insofaras it has fastened liabiiity upon the appeKant/jnsurance company, jointiy and severaliy, ajongwith driver andownerof the vehicfe. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.6.2007 while Yogesh Tiwari was retuming from Rajnandgaon to Raipur pn motorcycte, at that time near Sai Mandir, GE Road, behind Kumhari, a truck bearing registratjon No. CG-04-J-0787 (herejnafter referred to as "the offending vehicle"), which was being driven by respondent No.3 jn a rash and negligent manner came and dashed the motorcyde of Yogesh Tiwari.as a result, he sustained grievous injuries and suGCumbed to thesame.At the reievant time, the offending vehicie was insured with the appejlant/insurance company. Report of the accident was iodged at Poljce Station : Kumhari, whereupon Offence was registered against respondent No.3 under Cr.No.167/07 under Sections 279 & 304A of the IPC and after LV c-i ^ completion of jnvestigation, eharge sheet was fjled against him in the Court ofJudjcJaIMagjstrateFJrstC!ass,Durg. 3. At the time of acddent, the deceased was 28 years and was the proprietor of Tiwari Assocjates. He was earning Rs. 6 lac per year by sale and purchase of parts of computer, fax machine and consumable goods. The claimants were fufly dependent upon him. Therefore, the dajmants being lega! heirs of the deeeased, fiied a eiaim petitjon under Section 166 of the Motor Vehteles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") beforethe Tribunal for a total compensatjonof Rs.1,93,35,000/-against the death ofYogesh Tjwari under various heads. 4. However, iearned Tribunal, after close scrutiny ofthe evidence adduced by the parties before it, awarded a total compensatioo of Rs. 14,02,248/- fastening the liabifity upon the appejlant/insurance company, jointly and severaljy, along wjth the driver and owner of the offending vehicie. 5. Heard teamed counset for the parties, perused the LCR as aiso the impugnedaward. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has raised contentions that certain documents have not been CQnsidered by the Tribunal, which are JFOportant documents and goto the root of the matter. The Tribunal has given its findjng regarding iiabiiity without taking jnto consideratjon those documents. 7. in view of above submission, after going through the impugned order and the material avaijable on record, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal so that the parties may get an opportunityto amend pleadings, adduce further evjdence, fije the necessary documents or get the documents verjfjedetc. 8. In the resuft, we allow this appeal in part,set asjde the jmpugned award and remit the matter back to the claims Tribunal to decide the case afresh after giving opportunjty of hearing to the parties, in the light'of the observatjons made above. ^ ^' Kr 9. Needless to mention that the parties shail also be aliowed to amend the pteadings, adduce further evidence.file documents and get the documents verified eto. and thereafter, fresh findings shall be given by the Tribunai and award shafi be passed afresh. The Tribunai shali also conduct an enquiry into the claim for determining the just compensation as provided in Sections 168, 169ofthe Act, 1988 and Ruie 226 of the CG Motor Vehicle Ruies, 1994. Record of the crimjnai case shajj ateo be summoned. 10. The applteation under Section 170 of the Act, 1988 of the appejiant/insurance company shali also be considered. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant/insurance company shall remain jn fixed deposit and shall be subject to the decision to be taken afresh by the Tribunal. In casethe amount so deposited has already been di'sbursed to the daimants, the same shall not be recovered from the claimants till the decision of the Tribunal. 11. Parties shal! appear before the Tribunalon 15th September, 2011 . 12. LCR shail be sent back to the TribunaJ without further delay. 13. No order as to costs. 14. Certifjed copy as per rules. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge /