^ ^-VVE ^' ^, Dlvl^lo^ IN THE HON'BLE CHHATTIS6ARHJ-IIGHCOURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.\ M.A. (C\ N0. 1^1- /2011 rb.B/t APPELLANT :^,^s ..^^y^^; ' ...—r ?S^^'Q^ ^g^a..-*" .^^T ..•••^"^ y^-" ^° IESPONDENTS fl <& 2 are Claimants) Owner National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (M.P.)Now(C.G.) VERSUS 1. Inderasia W/o Kunjlai, aged about 26 years by caste-Pando, 2. Sukwariya W/o Jaylal, aged about 65 years by caste-Pando, 3. Vishnath S/o Manfer, aged about 60 years, by caste-Sahu, ^" are R/o Village- Raghunathnagar, Mohalla- Pandopara, P.S.-Ramkola, Tahsil- Wadrafnagar, Distt. Surguja (C.&.) MISC APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTQR VEHICLE ACT. ^i HI6H COUftT OP CHHATTIS^^RH ^T 8II.A5PUR &IV2SION BENCH: HON'BLE AAR. I.M.QUDDUSI A HON'BLE MR.GULAfA MINHAJU&&IN. JJ ApoeJlant Responclents M.A. rd No.192/2011 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Inderasia A others Present? Mr* ftaj Awasl+ii, Advocate for 1+ie appellant. Mr. D.N. Prajdpati, Advocate for the respondents No.l & 2. Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Adv, for the respondent No,3, ORDERfOrd^ (25th July, 2011) X M. Quddusi. J; "1. Heard on l.A. No.l, opplication for condonation of delcxy, 2. For the reasons assigned in 1+ie cyplication, which has not been opposed by learned counsel for -riie respondents, it is albwed and delay in preferriing 1+i is appeal is condoned. 3. Appellant-Insurcxnce Company has filed 1+iis appeal <xgajnst the award dated 12.01.10 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, Sarguja (for short *the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No<164/99, 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 31.5J999 Kunjlal (since deceased) was going to Village Sarna by driving the tractor bearing reaistration number CPL-9283. &ue to overturning of the said tractor-trolley on account of failure of brakes, the deceased pressed under it and died, Report of the incident was lod9ed in Police Outpost ftaghunath Nagar, Poiice Station ftamkola. The claimants filed claim application seeking compen^xtion of fts,14,60,000/- on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, < who was sole earning member in the family, and due to his death 1+iey have suffered loss of income. 5. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award allowed -riie cteim application, awarded a sum of fts.3,7S,000/- auid fastened liability on the flppelta^t herein to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. 6. l^earned counset for the appellant-Insuronce Company has contended that at the time of accident no policy in respect of the offending vehJGle was issued ^^^ by the appellant and as such, the oppellant was not liable to pay any compensation. 7< We have heard learned counsel for the parties, We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 8. On careful examination of the record reveats that the insurance company has taken a specific plea in its written statement 1+iat at the tJme of accident the vehicle was not inaired with it, but the Claims Triburftal has not framed any issue in this regard and thus committed a manifest mistake because if it is proved that no policy was issued by the q3(»liantin respect of 1+ie offending vehicte, it cohnot be held re^ponsible for making payment of compensation to the claimants. Therefore, we feel that the matf-er requires reconsideration at 1+ie endof the Claims Tribunal. 9. In view of the abave, we partly allow this appeal, set aside the impu9ned award ond remit the mafter back to the Claims Tribunal for taking decision afresh, Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunit/ to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and amend the pteadings or to file documents or verify llhe documwits already filed. The parties are directed to flppear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 25th Auaust. 2011. 10<The Re9istry Js directed to tronsmit recard of the Ctaims Tribunal concerned without further detay. Nto order as to costs. Y^ Roshai.. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge