• BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A SILASPUR ci^f 0,''(»:', MISC. APPEAL FC1 N0.'3^^> /2008 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 L i-ta";!1! uiiai'istt ^APPELLANT ' INSURER AA-^ -v^ ^',<;••' •* <y 0^^" AT '^A--' RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS DRIVER QWNER ,. ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office: ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra- Kurla, Complex, Mumbai, 4000 51, through its Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, 3rd Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS J*-^ 1. Put@ma Bai Wd/o Gajraj alias Gajju,aged about 23 years (wrongly mentioned as daughter of Gajraj) ..2. Phool Kunwar Bai Wd/o Dauwaram, aged about 50 years. 3, Sukalu Ram son of late Dauwaram, aged about 25 years. 4. Ku. Kumari D/o late Dauwa Ram, aged about 16 years minor through natural guardian mother Phool Kunwar Bai, /5. / All resident of village- Kuthrel, P.0. Manohara, District Raipur (C.G.) Sunil Kumar S/o Latel Bhai Satnami, R/o Kuthrel, P.0. Manohara, P.S. Dharsinwa, District Raipur (C.G.). Parsadi Lal S/o Khoswa Baghel, R/o Kuthrel, P.0. Manohara, P.S. Dharsinwa, District Raipur (C.G.) ^/ CLAIM IN APPEAL VALUED_AT RS. 3,00,600/- ^ 1 ••^-*.^ •^•^ 's«<SiS <?""'. ;^;^\ ^ .-•!--B S y 9 ^ '^." -^y 'V!SS!—^Q^V HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6AftH AT BILASPUR MVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUODUSI & HON'BLE MR. PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. JJ. i.A. tC) hto.356/2008 Appellant Respondents Vs ICTCI Lombard Seneral Insunmce Compony Limited, Raipur Purnima Bai and others \ Present; Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. 5.C. Verma, Advocate for the respondents No.5 & 6. OR&ER fOran (3^ January. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellant-Insuronce Company has preferred this miscelianeous oppeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehictes Act, 1988 (for short Ithe Act') against the impugned award dated 29.01.2008 passed by The learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C6) (for short "tiie Tribunat') in Claim Case No.27/2007 awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,600/- To -the claimants and fastening liability on the appellant- Insuronce Compomy to satisfy the award. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that 15.6.2007 at about 7-8 a.m. in the morning deceased Sajraj alias 6ajju Satnami was 9oing towards Baikunth from Village Kuthrel in the tractor of non-appliaant No.2/respondent No.6 'herein. t)ue to rash ond negligent driving of the driver of the said tractor i.e. respondent No.5 herein, the deceased came under the wheet of the said tractor cmd died. Matt-er was reported to the Police Station Nevra, District Raipur. The claimoaits/respondenT No.l to 4, who are widdw, inother, brother & sister of the deceased, have claimed compensation of Rs.4,43.000/- on the ground that they were dependent on 1+ie deceased, wdio wos the sole earning member in family, and due to his death. they have suffered loss of income. ItiCTnl .•^y^. SST3|i 1 ^s^ '• -1"? \ ^ \: 4. Non-appiicants No.l & 2 have filed their writt-en statement and denied the claim of the claimomts and submitted that the deceased himself was responsibte for- the accjdent. Non-applicant No.3 has also fited its reply and Stated that the vehicle was plied in breach of the terms and conditions of the inaironce poticy. 5. We have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused •the records of the Tribunai as also the findings given in the impugned award. 6. From perusal of the record it is evident ThaT The tractor in question was purchased on 10.6.2007 and according To the owner of the tractor, the premium was paid at the time of purchasing the tractor itself i.e. on 10.6.2007, but from the coyer note produced by the owner it appears that insurance of the tractor in auestion was made on 15.6.2007 at 7.00 a.m., however, it is not known as to whether the amount of premium was paid in cash or through cheque. Though in the cover note nothing has been mentioned as to whether amount was paid through cheque but in the policy collection details have been mentioned and as per policy, premium of Rs.8,300/- wcs coliected vide collection No.1011045629 ctated 15.6.2007. There is no explanation of the note on the insurance policy that "stamp duty of Re.0.5 poid in cash or by demouid draft or by pay order,yide receipt/challon No.2258 ctated 16.04.2007', as mentioned therein. In the poliey, the insunmce was made effective from 20.6.2007 and the cover note number has also been diown different to the above mentioned cover note number i.e. ME 4913198, whereas in the policy cover note number hos been mentioned as ME 5290049, but this cover note has not been produced by the either party before the Tribunal. - Therefore, we are of the view that dealer of the tractor should have atso b'een summoned to know as to whether tractors sold by him were being insured by the agent of appelbnt-Inajrance Company and if so, . whdt was.the name of the agent and its number and whether the amount of insurance of the sold Tructors being paid in cash by the dealer or by the purchasers. .Further; there is no evidence on record To the effect _l; 'iS' ;%i;fs'<Rie;£°"->i:.sesm ":3.!?.3: '/A 'V^S^f^. s:; g "sSS»--% j I . ," J <^ ^,.^' ^ owner of the vehicle in question has engaged the deceased as labourer or not. 7. Accordingly, we feel That a further enquiry is necessary in the motter and therefore, we are of the opinion that jt is a fit case where the motter shouid be remitted back to the Tribunal for ctecision afresh. 8. In the result,we allow this appeal in part, set aside the award dated 29.01.2008 passed in Claim Case No.27/2007 by the learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C6) and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh in the light of observations made in this order. The Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and shnlt follow the provlsions of Section 168 of the i4ct and Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules in deciding the claim petition. The parties shall also be entitied tp amend the pleadings or file documents or verify the documents already filed. The amount already deposited by the appellanT-InsupanceCompany with the Tribunal below shali remain in deposit and shallnot be djsbursecf.if olready not disbursed, till the decision is taken afresh. 9. The apped Is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Roshan/- Sd/- I.M.QUddusl Judge Sd/- prashantKumarMishra Judge \; ^rfre^rsc,!,^" 1-''~- C".^