IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal [c1 No. Pséw OF 2009 Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company }Limi‘red, ’rhrough Branch Manager, Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha‘ Marg, Pandr'i, Raipur (6.6.) APPELLANT r INSURER Versus 1 SmT. Tikeshwar‘i Bai Aged aboufr 2O . year's W/o Jageshwor Tarak 2. Minor Khemraj Aged O4 Month S/o Jageshwar Tarak.(Through - Na‘ruml Guardian SmT. Tikeshwari Bai' W/o Jageshwar) 3. Derha Ram Tarak 5/0 La‘re Jefhu Ram Tarak Aged 52 Years. 4.5m’r. Mangfeen Bai W/o Derha Ram Aged 45 Vears. AH R/o ViHage Kirwai Th. Rajim Distric‘r Raipur CG. RE5PONDENT5 CLAIMANTS (Wife) 5 Khi‘eshwar Kumar Tarak S/o Manharan Lal Tarak R/o Village Kopr‘a P.S. + Th. Rajim DIS‘l'r'iC'r Raipur C.G. 6Dwar‘u Ram Tarak S/o Je’rhur‘am Tarak R/o Village Pandri Dislric’r Raipur C.G. APPEAL U/S 1‘73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE WARD/ORDER DATED 03.08.2009 PASSED 3V. THE UPPER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL GARIYABANDH DISTRICT RAIPUR 5/200 39. « ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR 3 M. A. (C) No. 1340 of 2009 APPEAL UNDER SEQTLON 173 OFJ‘HE MOTOR VEHICLES ACTL1988 DB: Hon’ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 85 Hon’ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Jamil Akhter Lohani, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 9th day of November, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard. 1. This appeal has been tiled by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 3.8.2009, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariaband, District _ Raipur in Claim Case No. 35/2009, awarding a total Compensation of Rs. 3,38,400/~ to the claimants. 2. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 22.1.2009 deceased Jageshwar Tarak was going to sell fish to Basin Bazar from village Kirvai by the vehicle — Tata 207, bearing registration No. C.G. O4 ZA 0264. At that time, on the Basin main road due to the rash and negligent driving of the non~applioant No.1 the vehicle turned turtle and the deceased came under the vehicle and died on the spot. The reportof the incident was lodged in the Police Station Rajim, wherein it was registered at Crime No. 12/2009 for the offence under Section 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4, and perused the lower Court records. The respondents No. 1 to 4 have also filed their cross—objection for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Appellant Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Smt. Tikeshwari Bai 8r, others S. The quantum of compensation f1xed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be inadequate, at this juncture, therefore we are not considering the question of quantum at this stage. However, we left it for the consideration of the Tribunal, in View of the cross— objection filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4/c1aimants in the instant appeal. ' 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal on the question of liability. The M.A.C.T. has fixed the liability of the Insurance Company, without providing the adequate opportunity to defend. The appellant could not produce the witnesses and the evidence was closed on 24.7.2009. The order-sheets of the claim petition shows that the Written statement was filed by the non—applicants No. 1 and 2 on 8.7.2009 and thereafter the next date was fixed for 15.7.2009 on which date the statements of the claimants’ witnesses were recorded and on that date it was observed by the M.A.C.T. that the non—applicants No. l and 2 were not contesting the case in proper manner and their evidence was also closed and it was directed that ‘on the next date the non—applicant No.3, the instant appellant, shall produce the witnesses. It may be noticed that this order was passed on 15.7.2009 fixing the date as 24.7.2009 i.e. within a gap of only 9 days. The instant appellant could not produce its witnesses on that date and despite the request for adjournment the evidence was closed and the case was fixed for arguments for 27.7.2009. Thus, we are of the opinion that the appellant could not get adequate time to produced its witnesses and therefore in our opinion the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal only with respect of fixing the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. 7. The Tribunal shall also consider the question of quantum of compensation in View of the cross objection filed by the respondents No. l to 4/ claimants for enhancement of amount. 8. In view of the above, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award dated 3.8.2009 and remit the matter to the M.A.C.T. concerned for the limited purpose to give finding in regard to issue No.3 of liability and enhancement of compensation on the basis of the cross-objection, in regard to issue No. 2. Rest §\ of the findings of the Tribunal shall remain intact. The Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence or amend the pleadings or file the documents or get the documents verified for the above mentioned limited purpose and thereafter give findings in respect of’issue No.3 as well as issue No.2 for enhancement of the amount of compensation. It is expected that the Tribunal would expedite the hearing and decide the claim petition, as indicated above, Within a reasonable period. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs. ll. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from the Tribunal, forthwith. 12. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 7th December, 2010. l3. the claim petition, if not already disbursed. £ A The amount deposited shall remain in deposit till the disposal of Sd/- Sdl- I.M.Quddussi N.K.Agarwal Judge Judge Thakur