3^ ^Hid^l, ^Tn^li<o, (sicii^y mwfi sb^ich 311^1 M51C*1 t-4.(V - C^?. 4-^. •*'•'«'«?•*••^?** ••«^*«y»W^ 2001- ^^ 3TT^T^T R^ich3T^T 5bHi<=h^rf?cT 3T1^?T ?^cTTW ;R^T APPELLANT INSURANCE VER8US RBSPONDBNTS 1. CLAIMANTS 2. 3. 6. 7. ^w^Nt4^iH<niff ^ te^ ifa^K ^3ri^RTW^T |he Oriental Insuraace Coiapaay L|imited, fhrough its Branch ]\|Iaaager, Braach Office, Opposite ]NJonnal School (Now High Court), qUaspur(C.G.) K|artikram Vishwakarma, S/o, P|adru Vishwakaraia, aged 46 y^ars Ajshok Kuinar S/o. Kartikraoi, a^ed 20 years. ^iijay Kumar S/o. Kartikram a^ed 18 years K\ K ii, Meena D/o. Kartikraoi, aged ^ years |ii. Seenia D/o. Kai'tikrain, aged P years jay Kumar, S/o. Kartikram, a^ed 7 years N^ a^ m.dkuniar, S/o. Kaitikraai, [ed 4 years. ;spondents No. 4 to 7 miiior rough fheir natziral guardiaii fa|ther Kartikraai/respondent N(|).I.) Al|l r/o. Gram Gobripat, P.S. Kota, Djstrict Bilaspur (CG) f^t) XI-HC-22 3T^?r^T f^TWW^T $b^icb^f?cf h^^ j^- ^(Hid4, ^Tn<Mli<o, [®«ni<-iy WWiTT^*11<h 311^1 M5|t(t W<^-^-<^/^ 2006 f^^[ gn^Tg^TWfff^T -Z-- DRIVER (Agaiiist whoin Cruniaal case was mstituted) OWNER 8. chHtd^l4 ^ll^dT ^ te^t <Rl«l< ^^Tf^rw^r 9. i^amlaimar S/o. Duktiuram ^ahu, aged 19 years, r/o. Gram Ifataita, P.S. Kota, District ^ fl) DRIVBR (New Driver arrayed for fhe first time ui fhe Tribunal at fhe iastance of tlie owner) 26.04.2007 10. iilaspur(C.G.) ^ukhuram. Sahu, S/o. Baliuram ahzi, aged Not known, r/o. Gram ataita, P.S. lilaspur (C.G,) Kota, Distarict }hivaji Uddiii, D/o. Nizaaiuddia, }y Caste-Miislmi, r/o, MungeU, ^istrict Bilaspur, Presently F^sidiag fhroiigh Dukhuram S|ahu, r/o. Gram Pataita, P.S. & |ehsU Kota, Distdct BUaspur (^p.G.) Shn Abhishek Siaha, co^insel for tiie appellaat. Even ia fhe second respondents. Though respond) respondents No. 8 to 10 are re^ Heard th.e appelaat. Record of the Tnbunal is call none appears for fhe mt Nos. 1 to 7 are served and )resented. perused. This appeal is du'ect^d against fhe award dated 20.07.2005 passed by the N^ith Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) BUasp^r in Clami Case No. 21/2005. whereby the Tribunal has awarjded a SUDI ofRs. 25000/- to tiie appUcaats towards iajuries su^ of appUcaiit No.l aad mofhd •taitied by Champa Bai, fhe wife I- of ajpplicant No.2 tp 7, who XI-HC—78 3TT^T ^T f<rl[<=h ^SH^nc^T^RW 3-wT ^TI^II^, ^Ttiy^l^, rcxrft'f-iy ^(^dl ^b^llcb ^.........U...A..:.A......€..^...^..^ 200 ^ 3H^r x^^ (^t^^) ^ITW^f^T V3T^T -fa>- accitAent belong^ng subseqluenfly fasteried sustamed injuries ia flie by the use of tractor No.^ Chaiapa Bai died The fiiidiags recorded of Chainpa Bai was not as a 4 ia the accident and fhiel conipensalion has been to 3 (Appellaiit & respondent held to be jointly aad sevei conipensation, Leanied counsel for th.^ the clamiaat had fUed fhe owner of the vehicle naraely, as ftie driver of the tractor ^ subsequently the application No.4/respondent No. 10 was accident. The matter was fixl /non-appUcaat No.3 on 12.< Process Fee for issuaace of fhe same was not retumed closed fhe opportunity of the passed tiie unpugned award appeUant with a findiag fhat fhat fhe vehicle ui question w^ <=hl^(d41^ 'WT??f ^,1^1 ^R^R '^•3tf^T3iT^r which occurred on 19.06.99 to non appUcaD.t/respondent >y fhe Tribunal is ftiat the deafh ?sult of iajuries sustaiaed by her UabiUity of the payment of upon the non-applicaats No. 1 No. 8 & 9 hercm) who have been |ally responsible for paynient of ap^)lication appellaat subinits fliat uiitially showiag the son of fhe |Ram Kuiaar/uon-appUcant No,l a|t th.e time of accident. However, |^as amended aad non-appUcaat thown as fhe driver at fhe time of ^d for evidence of fh.e appeUant \2005, The appeUaat paid diie nlotices to fhe witaesses. However ?rved or unsen?red. The Tribunal jippeUaat to adduce evidence aad jfastenmg fhe Uabillty upon the ^he appellaat has failed to prove |.s beiag driven by fhe driver who 017 XI-HC—78 3?n^r ?FT'f^iw T[^T •3TT^?T 5h^ich TcST ^t-MI^, ^Tfl-H'KS, is)<yl>l<-t^< Ni^ds wrra? ^...........M.....^...-.CL..-...^.^-.^........^ 200^ a^yr ^w (^f^^r) ^^[^R ^rf^T 3TT^T (-1- 07 Tnbulnal had no valid aad effective breach ofpoUcy condition. I have heard counsel for I have perused fhe recoijd of fhe order sheet dated 12J inatter was fixed for evidence & counsel for fhe appeUaat ^ evidence as his witaesses did that io. the earUer occasions evidence of fhe appeUaat aad Fee for issuaiice of suinnions exaiained by him. The adduciag evidence of fhe app|c matter is pending since long directed to serve his witoaessds Sen?er but no steps were takei was j5xed for final argunients award has been passed. Considenng the facts aad furfher considermg th.at ttie sufficient opportunily to adduc< atlowed. The impugned award reiaaiided back to the concel direction that the Tribunal shall Uc^nse and as such fhere was no L _. 'WlfeFit7T 'RTR^ff ^ft1cst <^1<^l< '^'stiw'sn^r |lie appeUaat. of fhe Tribunal. Frora perusal \ 2005 it is observed ttiat fhe )fappellaiit/non appUcaiit No.3 prayed for further tiiue to lead jnot tuni up. It is also observed lalso the matter was fixed for jfhe appellaat had paid Process [:o fhe witoaesses proposed to be closed the opportunity of ?Uaat on the ground that the [aad fhe appeUaat was earlier through the Special Process ia this regard and the inatter jand accordiagly the tnipugned at> circumstaaces offhe case aad L^peUaat has not been afforded evidence, the mstaat appeal is |is set aside aad fhe matter is sbied Claims Tribunal wifh a 41 give one raore opportunity tq^ XI-HC—78 ^n^r ^T [<'ii<=h TTSH ^TT^T $iN^F ^- -S^ss r^w^, ^T-H^^KS, rsf^i'yy •WTFIT 5bNI<=h^...............^..a..'..^:.....^.fy......•^ 200 (- 3Ut?T ^^ (^t^^) '^nw ^rStH ^T^T fhe appellant/non applicaat fhereafter decide tiie matter afr^sh The appellaat is also dire^ attendance of the witaesses |t behatf. Further consideriug f4at 1999. tfae Tribunal is directed conclude the same preferably v^iffa froni fhe date of receipt of tiiis Compmiy shall not take aiiy s| conipensation deposited aad| clamiaat. In the meaawhile, officel record along with Uie copy of th| 4){^(<vl4ir11P[TR^Tf '^,'fecst <^<^K '^T^TRR^^r No.3 to lead evidence aiid led to take steps to procure the proposes to examlne on its the matter is pending siace to expedite the matter aiid ifhio. a period of three nionths 3rder. The appeUaiit/Insuraiice teps to recover fhe am.ount of already witiidrawn by fhe is directed to send back the s order forfhwith. >^Mtebra Judge