IN THE HON'BLEHIGH COUKI Ut- t.nHAlllStoAilH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)No.- ^c&^—/2011 (D.B.) D(vtei«onB@nc'5 APPELLANT ^^y ^^^ ..^•-'"^~ ^ ^^'.^- Jl' BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY. LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE- RAMA TRADE CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR, IN FRONT OF RAJEEV PLAZA, BUS STAND ROAD, BILASPUR (INSURER OF VEHICLE N0. C.G. 10 A/0863) '^^^ v ^ o Vrs, RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS :-l. SMT. SARAS UPADHAYAY, WIDOW OF PRADEEP UPADHAYAYAGE 46 YRS. 2. PRATEEK UPADHAYAY, S/0 LATE PRADEEP UPADHAYAYAGE18YRS. BOTH RESIDENT, ASHOK VIHAR, FACE-2, A.V. -61, THANA SARKANDA TEHSILAND DISTRICT BILASPUR C.G. 3. RAJKUMAR SING, S/0 SANOHAR SING, AGE 21 YRS. CASTE GOND, RESIDENT VILLAGE & POST BELTARA, THANA RATANPUR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, C.G. (DRIVER OF VEHICLE N0. C.G. 10 A/0683) 4. ARUN KUMAR JAISWAL, S/0 BALRAM KUMAR JAISWAL, RESIDENT VILLAGE & POST BELTARA, THANA RATANPUR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, C.G. (OWNER OF VEHICLE N0. C.G. 10 A/0683) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT I '^1 % KWV^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. 582 of 2011 Appellant Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Srat. Saras Upadhayay & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 86 Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Sudhir Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. None for the other respondents. /^ ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 17th day of October, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 7.2.2011, passed by the Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 118/2010, awarding a total sum of Rs. 15,41,711/- as compensation, holding the non-applicants, including the present appellant, as jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation'to the claimants. 2. The, brief facts, in nutshell, as-projected by the claimants, are that on 19.5.2009 deeeased Pradeep Upadhyaya was going to Korba from Bilaspur by his motorcycle, bearing registration No. C.G. 12/3022. On the way, near Koni water tank, at about 4.25 p.m., the motor cycle was dashed by the Metadoor, bearing registration No. C.G. 10-A/0863 which was being driven in a rash and \/ y I"Y negligent inanner by the non-applicant No.l (Rajkumar Singh). As a result of that accident Pradeep Upadhyaya died on the spot. 3. The dependents of the deceased had filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 78,91,674/- under various heads. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record passed the impugned award. 5. We have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court records. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the driver of the Metadoor concerned was not having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident, as he was having the licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle (HGV) only and not the light transport vehiele (LTV), whereas the Metadoor which he was driving Was a light transport vehicle. To substantiate his submission learned counsel appearing for the appellant drawn our attention to the certificate dated 25.7.2011, issued by the R.T.O. Bilaspur in regard to the licence issued to the driver of the offending vehicle, wherein it is mentioned that the driver is authorized to drive LMV Non-Transport Vehicle and HGV Transport Vehicle. ,7. On perusal of the licnece it appears that there is an endorsement in the driving licence to drife light transport vehicle but the same was not proved whether on the date of accident the same was ^- exis.ting and whether the driver was competent to drive Metadoor on the basis of that licence. Therefore, we are of the opinion that to ascertain the veracity of the licence, the matter requires reconsideration at the end ofthe Tribunal. /^ ^ ^l 8. In view of the above, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award dated 7.2.2011 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of this order. No order as to costs. 9. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal, as early as possible. 10. The question of grant of perraission under .Section 170 of the Act, 1988 shall also be considered by the Tribunal. 11. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be kept in a fixed deposit scherae of any nationalized bank, initially for a period of one year and the same shall be subject to a fresh decision by the Claims Tribunal. 12. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 30th November, 2011. 13. The Registiy is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from the Tribunal, forthwith. —:~r Thakur Sdi- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G.Minhajuddin Judge