-J_. (3) i/'^. *A IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (Cl NOT^f O OF 2011 ^PPELLANT RE6PONDENT N0. 5 OWtet6nB®ncl IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Limited, 3rd Floor, Shop No. 345-347 Ganga Shopping, Near Mata, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh VE RS U S RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS ^- 4. ^ Smt. Gayatri Bai, wife of Late Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav, aged about years 24 hlatoi Ram, son of Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Yadav, aged about 47 years Tirath Bai, wife of Hatoi Yadav, aged about 46 years Hemlata Yadav, daughter of Late Shri Vinod Kumar, aged about 3 years, being minor are represented through her mother, Smt. Gayatri Bai Yadav All resident of Village Mowa, Near Shitla Temple, Thana Mowa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Mani Ram Patel, son of Shri Bhagwan Singh, age not known to the appellant, resident of Shankar Nagar, Khamhardhih (Behind College), Thana Pandari, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (DRIVER) The New India Insurance Company Limited, through Regional Manager, Division No. 2, Behind Jeevan Bima Office, Pandari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (INSURER) Devendra Kumar @ Pappu Dhivar, son of Shri Dilip Kumar Dhivar, age not known to the appellant, resident of Ram Temple Mowa, Noor Kirana Stores, Near Mowa Masjid, Mowa, Thana Mowa (Pandari), Raipur, Chhattisgarh (DRIVER) Dilip Kumar Dhivar, son of Late Shri Kashi Ram Dhivar, age not known to the appellant, resident of Ram Temple Mowa, Noor Kirana Stores, Near Mowa Masjid, Mowa, Thana Mowa (Pandari), Raipur, Chhattisgarh ^' MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT1988 I „ X^ ^. ^^/^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. 719 of 2011 Appellant IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Limited Versus Respondents Smt. Gayatri Bai & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ |8SN^^ Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Satyendra Sahu, Advocate for the respondents.No. 1 to 3. Shri Sri Kumar Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No. 6. 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 1.2.2011, passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 91/2009, awarding a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation, holding the non-applicants No. 3 to 5, including the present appellant, as jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. 2. The, brieffacts, in nutshell, as projected by the claimants, are that on 15.5.2008 at about 8.15 p.m. near Prince Dhaba, Pandri, Raipur, the non-applicant No.l (Mani Ram Patel) while driving the Auto Rickshaw, bearing registration No. C.G. 04-T/4394 in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle, bearing registration No. -I •^ "^ ^y \ \ ' r C.G. 04-CY/4900. In that accident Vinod Kumar Yadav, who was sitting as pillion rider on the motorcycle, got grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The Auto was insured by the present appellant, whereas the motorcycle was insured by the New India Insurance Company Limited. 3. The dependents of the deceased had filed a claim case under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation ofRs. 4,97,000/- 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 learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the lower Court records and found that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereas while passing the impugned award learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law in deciding the case under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. Besides this, it has also framed the issue regarding negligence, whereas sub-section (2) of Section 163-A provides that "In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person." 6. In view of the above, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award dated 1.2.2011 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. 7. 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. 8. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be kept in a fixed deposit scheme 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. 9. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 30th , November, 2011. 10. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from the Tribunal, forthwith. - ~' " Thakur Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge