IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR M.A. (C) N0. 2-4-8 / 2008 Appellant L°s .....••(p-W-r^ i 6y-wo::M4M*" ^.' \ ^^^y)-; ^••••a' Respondents Versus Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, S/o Late Devi Prasad Agarwal, Aged about 33 years, Occupation - Business, R/o Village & P.S. Prem Nagar, Tehsil - Surajpur,Dist ,: Sarguja- (C.G.) 1. The New Indialnsurance , Company Ltd., Branch Office Bilaspur-(C.G.) — Insurer— 2. OmPrakash, S/o Mangal Sai, Aged about 25 years, Caste - Panika, Occupation - Driver, R/o Village - Chandan Nagar, P.S. - Prem Nagar, Tehsil - Surajpur, Distt: Sarguja-(C.G.) MISC.APPEAL U/ S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. •^' ^ ^ »v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ~w M.A.^No. 248 of 2008 Appellaat Raaiesh Kuraar Agarwal Versus Respondents The New India Insuraiice Coinpany Ltd, & anofher APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: HonT^le Shri Satish K. Agmhotri & Honl^le ShriJustice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri A, N. Paadey, Advocate for the appeUant, Shri A. K. Athle, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 1. Noue for fhe respondent No. 2. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 2nd day of December, 2009 ) Per Satish K. Agnihotri J. Heard. This appeal arises from. fhe order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Clauns Tribunal (FTC), Soorajpur, Distdct - Surguja in Claim Case No, 141/2007, The iadisputable brief facts, in nutsheU, are fhiat the appellaat is fhe owner ofthe vehicle bearing registi-ation No, C.G. 15-B/1618 by which the accident was caused. By fhe ioipugned order dated 22.11.2007, the Tribunal has decided the issue No.2 asto whether fhe appellaat Ramesh Kum.ar Agarwal, who beiag owner of the vehicle by which accident was caused, conies under ttie categoiy of 'fhird party', in accordaace with law, Learaed Tribuiial has aaswered fhis issue ia negative fhat fhe appeUaat, being owner of fhe vehicle by which accident was caused, does not come uiider the category of 'third party' aiid as such he is not entifled to aay coinipensation for his owu loss» Haviag heai'd leamed counsel appearfag for the pardes and haviag perused fhe docunients, includiag the iasuraiice poUcy, appended fhereto, it appears fhat learaed Tribunal has not taken iato consideration fhe 'Conipulsory P.A. Cover Premiuni^ which is clearly evident from perusal oftlie policy. The fmdings recorded by •2-- fhe Tribunal fhat the poUcy does not cover the claim are exfaae tacorrect 4. In view oftite foregoiag, fhe iicipugned order dated 22.11.2007 is set-aside. The matter is remaaded back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration aiid determiaation of fhe conipensation, ia accordaace wifh law, on its own merits, as early as possible. 5. The parties are permitted to adduce additional evidences, if so advised. 6. The Tribunal may consider otjtier evidences also, ifadduced by the partles, 7. The observations, if any, made hereiaabove, shall not be construed as our opiaion on merit, 8. The appeal is allowed to fhe above extent No order asto costs. 9. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned froin the Tribunal, forthwifti. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Thakur