—~!OT-^3iM:: jj_^_.-__._^..^-^.^-_-__. ^- c^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASTOR M.A. (C) No.- }^^1 ^^s APPELLANT THE ORIENTAL II^SURANCE COMPANY, THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KUTCHERY CHOWK, MADINA BUILDING, RAIPUR (C.G.) Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:- ^> ^f^-; :^r^S)^ !'.:• ^.^1^ t^^-^-""" 1. KHEMINBAIWIDOWTIKARAMYADAV, 20YRS, 2. CHAITRAM YADAV S/0 LATE CHANDU ) YADAV, 50 YRS, 3. KEJAI YADAV W/0 CHAITRAM YADAV, "> 45 YRS, PERMANENT ADDRESS - VILLAGE BHURKA,VIA -ABHANPUR, THANA- NAYAPARA, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C.G.), RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS:- ^_4. CHANDRIKA PATEL S/0 BUDHARU RAM PATEL AGE 30 YRS., VILLAGE BHURKA, THANA - NAYAPARA, VIA- ABHANPUR, DISTRICT - RAIPUR(C.G.) (VEHICLE DRIVER) RAJKUMAR GUPTA S/0 LATE CHHANNULAL GUPTA, MOTINAGAR, QUARTER N0.- 07, BORIYAROAD SANTOSHI NAGAR, RAIPUR(C.G.), THANA- TIKARAPARA, RAIPUR (C.G.) (OWNER OFACCIDENTAL VEHICLE) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 ^- ^> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON»BLEI.M. QUDDUSI fis HON'BLB PRASHANT Kr. MISHRA, JJ MISC. APPEAL No. 1232/2008 APPELLANT The Oriieutal Insurance Conipany Vs. APPEAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLBS ACT 1988 APPBARANCE: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the appeUant. None for tlie respondents. ORDER (ORALl (19.01.2011) Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J, 1. List is beiag revised. Case is again. caUed out. Though counsel for the appeUaiit is present, but no one appears on behalf of fhe respondents. Therefore, we proceed to hear tlie uiatter finally. 2. We have heard leanied counsel for the appellaat at lengtli aad have also gone tb.rough the records of fhe Tribunal. 3. This appeal has been filed by tiie Insm-aiice Company agaiast the impugned awairl dated 16.07,2008 passed by tiie VIII Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur (C.G) ia Clami Case No. 106/2007 graiitiiig compensatlon to the tune ofRs.3,35,000/- to fhe clamiants. 4. Brief facts of the case as per tlie version of the claiiiiants are that on 11.06.2007 Chaadrika Prasad, respondent no.4 RBSPONDENTS Khemin Bai & others was plyiag flie Miai Bus beariag Regn.No.04-ZA 0165 froxn Champaraa to Raipur along-wifh passengers, On the way at about 11,45 near Maiia town/due to his rash aiid negUgent driviiig, left back tire offhe vehicle was suddenly burst aad fhe vehicle tunied turtle, as a result of which, fhe conductor of fhe said Bus Tikai'am Yadav was pressed under Uie Bus aad he died on tiie spot. At the tiine of accident, fhe deceased was dischai'guig his duty as a conductor in fhe said Bus and was eaiTdng Rs.5000/- per inoafh iii that capacity axid he was young aiid energetic raan of aged about 23 years. The claunants beiag legal representatives of the deceased have niade claiin to tlie tuxie ofRs. 18,10,000/- ou vadous heads. 5. The leamed Clauns Tribunal held that on 11.6.2007 at about 11.45 a.ni., the Muii Bus haviag Regxi.No.04 ZA/0165 has tunied turtle due to rash aiid negMgent driviag of respondent no.4 aad Conductor Tikaraai was pressed mider fhe Bus and has died on fhe spot. It has found tliat fhe deceased was eamiag Rs.2500/- per niontii. It has fmlher held tihiat it is not proved that the driver was not haviag valid and eflFective drivuig Ucense. 6. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learaed counsel for tlie appeUaiit contends fhat fhe vehicle ia question was not haviag permit on tlie date of accident i.e., 11.6.2007 whereas fhie permit was issued witih. effect from 12,06.2007 which woiild expire on 30.06.2007 (Ex.D-2)), but fhere is a Certificate of fhe Regional Transport Officer, Raipur dated 07.08.2008 (Ex.D- 5) in which it has been znentioned fhat temporar\T perinit '^^^^^ ^ '^l^s?^ was issued at Serial No. 156/07 for the Route Champaran to Raipur ia favour of the vehicle whose validity was for fhe 6th month fhat is Jime, wliich was to expire on 30.06.2007. Botii fhe docuraents have been proved by N.A.W.3 Raia Kuniar, who was an Assistaiit Grade-II, appeared from fhe ofEce ofR.T.O., Raipur. However, fhis witoaess has admitted m his cross exammation fhat^the validity of permit shall be appUcable for ftie whole of fhe particular Bionfli tf fhe payment ofChaUan is Biade on due date. 7. In view of fhe contradictory position regardiag vaJidity of ihe Bus pei-mit, it is uecessary to reixdt the matter back to the Tribunal for the purpose of determiiiation of tlie tnie facts. 80 Therefore, we set aside fhe ioipugned award and reinit flie inatter back to fhe Tribunal for decision afresh. The Tribunal shall also conduct proper enquiiy aad suranion the reeord froin fhe R.T.0, ofl&ce aiid shatl venfy tiie date of permit issued by the Regioxial Traiisport Autliority and also the aniounts deposited from tiine to time by the owner of the Vehicle and shall also find as to whether on fhe date of accident, tlie permit was effecUve or not. The pai'ties shall be allowed to ajnend the pleadiags, adduce furfh.er evidence, tf aay, file fhe documents or get the documents verified etc., aad tliereafter fhe Tnbunal shall decide tlie claim petition afresh at fhe earUest ia Ught of fhe observations made hereia above. The parties shaU appear before the Tribunal on 22nd Feb. 2011. The records of fhe Tribunal shall be sent back wittiout further delay. -:^^^ ' ...^^. ,:;.-^ ^ "~% '^... //' £;....,"' 1 1 si^l J %^^y 9. The amount deposited by the Insuraace Coiupaiiy shaU not be allowed to be with-drawn aiid shall be kept ia a fixed deposit iii aiiy nationaUzed Baak tiU fh.e disposal of tiie claim appUcation. 10, In fhe result, fhis appeal is allowed ia part. No order as to cost. ^-... l.M.Q«ddusl 5udse Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao