IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR (C.G.) M.A.fC) N0. /2010 APPELLANT fON-APPUCAKT^ ' 4^^^;' i^S^ ^^y '•^•••" -^" tESPONDENTS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD Dena Bank Nandini Road, Power House Bhilai, Tah. & Distt.Durg VERSUS .1 APPLICANTNO.l Bh.arat Lal Gendre aged 37 years ^ S/o Vishal Gendre Manish Kumar Gendre aged 1 1 Yrs S/o Bharatlal Gendre. Through- father Bharatlal Gandre Both R/o Gram Khedamora Post Dhor, Thana Jam.ul Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^ Narayan Banjara S/o Ramlu Banjara R/o Sakin- Nandahi Thana Nandahi Tah. Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Inder Singh aged 30 Yrs S/o Harbhajan Singh R/o Sakin Nandani Road PowepHouse,. Bhilai (C.G.) APPEAL UNDBR SECTION 1730F MOTOR VEHICLE ACT NONAPPLICANT ^ N0.1 NON APPLICANT <^ N0.2 AGAINST AWARD PASSED BY XII ADDITIONAL ACCIDENT 26'^4,2010rM A_ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (0 No^859 of^O.10 Appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Respondents Bharat Lal Gendre 6s others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hontile Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Sri Kumar Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri B. P. Singh, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 26th day of November, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 26.4.2010, passed by the 10th Additional • Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg ih Claim Case No. 5/2010. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the lower Court records as well as the findings given in the impugned award. 3. TJie brief facts, in nutshell, are that earlier the present appellant had filed M. A. No. 363/1999 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bharatilal Gandre and others), challenging the award dated 24.11.1998, passed by the Tribunal ( IIIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg) in Claim Case No. 57/97, wherein the claimants were granted an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum. The grounds for challenge by the Insurance Company was that the !aa3^»*C^!&Mn ^-'^ '^J^/ application for exaniination of R.T.O. person and the Investigator on commission was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 8.10.1998, thus the appellant was not in a position to establish that it was not liable for payment of coinpensation. 4. Learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.12.2009 allowed the above appeal in part in the following temi: "9. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is partly allowed, so far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the impugned award dated 24.-11.1998 is set aside and the matter is remanded backfor examination ofR.T.O. Officer ofUdaipur, Rajasthan and the Investigator Vinod Kumar Tank, Udaipur, Rajasthan on cominission and for considering and deciding the liability of the Insurance Company after considering the effect of evidence so adduced. For this, the Tribunal shall appoint local counsel as conimissioner. Cost of the commission shall be born by the appellant and the Tribunal shall thereafter proceed to pass award in accordance with law." 5. It is evident that by the impugned award dated 26.4.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 5/2010 the Tribunal (IQth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg) has exceeded its jurisdiction in enhancing fhe amount of award from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs.4,10,000/-. 6. Jt is apparent that learned Tribunal has not properly understood the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 9.12.2009 in M.A.No. 363/1999. It was not directed to the M.A.C.T. that it will reassess the amount of compensation and to pass a fresh order on quantum. The order of this Court passed in the appeal was confined only to the liability of the Insurance Company which was to be decided by the Tribunal in terms of the directions issued in para 9 of the above order. Reassessinent of the award and "^<», 7. enhancing the amount of compensation was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in view of the specific directions issued by this Court, as mentioned above. However, on going through the evidence we see no reason to interfere in the liability part of the appeal in as much as the appellant has failed to adduce cogent and clinching evidence to susfain his defence regarding invalidity of driving licence and appeal on this ground is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. In view of the above, we allow this appeal in part. The impugned award dated 26.4.2010 is set aside to the extent of enhanceinent of compensation from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 4,10,000/-. The appellant insurance company is held liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the claimants, in terras of the earlier award dated 24.11.1998 passed in Claim Case No. 57/97. No order as to costs. ~-——•— Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Thakur il 'SS'.k.^MzawvsiKe.saKff,