IN THE HIGH COURT JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal [c1 No. 2-^^ OF ^007-^5^3 APPELLANT (Insurer) Vs ^ RESPONbENTS: Claimant ^ ^•- '<:* The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through the Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, Rama trade center opposite Rajeev Plaza near bus stand Bilaspur (CG) r 1. Smt. Loxmin Bai W/o Late RGmkumar Surywanshi Age 39 years. 2. Virendra Kumar -Surywanshi S/o Late Ramkumar •^ ? Surywonshi Age 21. 3. Baratu Lal Surywanshi S/o Late Ramkumar Surywanshi Age.20. 4. Baldau Prasad S/o Late Ramkumar Surywanshi Age 14 5. Ku. Hemlata S/o Late Ramkumar Surywanshi Age 08.^ „ 6. Makhan lal Surywanshi S/o Late Jhuru ram Surywanshi Age 60 years. (Respondent no. J^ and ^'through there legal hairs her Mother Smt. Laxmin Bai W/o Late Ramkumar) All Respondents Are R/o Vitlage Basha P.S. Seepat bistrict Bilaspur C.Q. <^ ^ Driver of vehicle CG10A4176 ^ Owner of vehicle C& 10 A 4176 -^ 8. Manoj das ©Vinod das S/o Vishnu das mahant R/o Viltage Limha P.S. Ratanpur District Bilaspur C.&. Koushal Kumar Soni S/o Ganga Prasad Soni R/o Village + post office Bettara P.S> Ratanpur District Bilaspur C.&. ^" APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT A6AINST THE AWARD/ORDER DATED 29.8.2007 ^FASSED BY SHRI M.D. JAGbALLA. THE ADbITIONAL MOTOR ACCIbENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL" BILASPUR. (C.G.) INC.T. N0.64/07 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILA8PUR DB: Hon*ble I. M. QUDDUSI & Hon*ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ APPBLLANT: RB8PONDENTS: MJ^ICt. No. 259/2008 The Oriental Insuraace Coinpaay Ltd. Vs. SuitLaxmia Bai and ofhers i.e> APPBLLANT: RE8PONDBNTS: M.AfCI. No. 366/2008 The Oriental Insuraace Company Ltd. Vs. Khem Siagh aad ofhers APPELLANT: RESPONDENT8: APPBLLANT: RESPONDBNT8: M.AICl. No. 367/2008 The Oriental Insiiracice Compaay Ltd, Vs. Saatorain Uike aad ofhers M.A(C1. No. 368/2008 The Oriental Insuraace Compaay Ltd. Vs. Dul Smph and ofhers MI8C. APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 173 QP THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr. Abhishek Siolia, couiisel for the Appellant lasurance „ Company m aU the appeals. Mr. Gautam Kheta-apal. counsel for the claimants/respondents 2 & 3 m M.A(C). "1 '" lv ^-:^.:f!^ •^ff Pe»I.M. OUDDUSI. J. 1. ORAL ORDBR (06.07.2011) Siace these appeals adse out of the saine accident raet with by Metador beariag Rega. No, C.G.10-A/4176. ftiey are beiag disposed of by fhis coixmion order. The Additk>nal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, BUaspur, has passed separate awards on 29.8.2007 ia different claim cases. 2. M.A(C).No. 259/2008 relates to Claim Case No.64/2007 filed by fhe legal reprcsentatives of fhe deceased i,e.» Smt Laxmin Bai and others, M.A(C). 366/2007 relates to Claim Case No.62/2007 filed by clamiaat iajured Khem Siagh, M.A(C). 367/2008 relates to claim Case No.60/2007 filed by fhe clahnant iajured Saatrani Uike. M.A(C). 368/2008 relates to Claim Case No.65/2007 by the clauiiaat injured Diil Siiigh. 3. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of fhe claimants are that on 05.11.2005 fhe claimarits/deceased were traveliag as labourers m Metador 407 bearing Regn.No. C,G.10-A/4176. They were goio^g froia Chandrapur to Beltara. On fhe way at about 4,00 p,nx. at viUage Hareti near Ushan caaal, fhe said vehicle which was aUegedly driven by non-appUcaiit no.l ia rash and negligent maaner turaed turde. as a resiilt of which deceased Ram. Kuniar died during fhe course of treataient whereas fhe ofher clamiaats have sustained iajuries aad became pennanenfly disabled. 4. The Claims Tribunal haviag regard to fhe facts situation aad evidence on record has awarded conipensations to fhe clamiaats holdmg fhat the Vehicle m question was iavolved ia the accident, as a rcsxilt of which, Ramkumar died aad ofher clahnants sustaiaed mjuries aad became permarienfly disabled, S. Leamed counsel for fhe appellaat subinits fhat fhe witaesses were ready to be exainined and aa appUcation was moved u\ •';'''^?.. ''. ^"•\ "^ .^..:y' ^'^ before fhe date of arguinents about fhis fact with. a prayer fhat evidence of fhe Insuraace Conipany be recorded but fhe Tribunal dismissed the application. Prior to that also fhe Insuraace Corapaay inoved aii appUcation seekiag tinie to adduce evidence on the ground fhat fhe Ofllcer who had to appear for giviag evidence had gone out of station for some personal reason but fhat application was also dismissed. 6. On perusal of fhe records offhe Clamis Tribunal we have found that ttie Tnbunal has framed only two issues i,e,. whether fhe deafh was due to the accident as a result of rash aiid negligent driviag of non-appUcant no.l aad fhe second issue is wifh regard to fhe quaatuin. However. the Tnbunal has not framed fhe raaui issues as to whether the deceased or fhe injured claimaats were the aufhorized representatives of the owuer of goods or fhe eiaployees or gratuitous passengers; whefher fhe goods were loaded in fhe Metador; whether it was a package policy and fhe mjiired aad deceased were covered by the package poUcy or not. 7. In view of the above facts aad circunistaaces. we are of fhe opiaion fhat fhe m-atter requires reconsideration at fhe end of fhe Tribunal. Therefore, we atlow fhis appeal ia part aad reniit tiie matters back to the Clamis Tribunal for decision a&esh, 8. Needless to mention that fhe parties shatl be allowed to amend the pleadiags, adduce farfher evidence. file fhe dociinients or pet fhe docuinents venfied etc aad thereafter the decision shall be taken afresh at fhe earUest. The records of fhe Tribunal shaU be sent back without further delay. The pardes shaU appear before the Tribunal on 05A August, 2011. 9. The amount which has already been deposited by the AppeUant shall remain ia fiixed deposit wifti any Nationalized Baak till the fresh decision is taken by the Tribunal, 10. - In fhe result, the appeals are atlowed in part. No order as to costs. _^_ ^-_ Rao Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge