IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR M.A. (c) N0. 2-\^\ OF 2Qt6 -li £ APPELLANT: (Non-applicant No.3) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through the Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, In Frpnt of Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tehsil and bistrict Bilaspur (C&) (Insurer of the Maruti Van NO.C612/BB/1963) Vs RESPONDENTS: ('Claimants) ^. ^ .AS^ /^y /^ /y^^ ^>' / .°• yy/y ^4/^ ^ 1. Smt. Parwati Shyam, wife of Late Avtaar Shyam, aged about 28 years. 2. Kumari Satyawanti Shyam, d/o Late >^-' Avtaar Shyam, aged about 09 yrs. 3. Pravesh Kumar, s/o of Late Avtaar ^-' Shyam, aged about 05 yrs 4. Mohitram Shyam, s/o of Late Avtaar ^-. Shyam, aged about 03 yrs 5. Kumari Nirmala, d/o of Late Avtaar Shyam, aged about 01 yrs. Nos.2 to 5 are minors through their natural guardian mother-Smt. Parwati Shyam, wife of Late Avtaar Shyam, aged about 28 years. All residents of Village Bindawal, Tehsil & P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur (C6) 6. Lallu Yadav, s/o Sarju, r/o Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur (C6) (Driver of Maruti Van No.C612/ BB/ 1963) 7. Rajesh Pandey, son of not known, r~/o Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, P.S. ^. ^ .•d' ^s 3 Sarkanda, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur (C6) (Owner of Maruti Van No.C(512/ BB/ \[ef^V£63^^^i- k-^^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE1AOT VEHICLE ACT. 1988 L B <zX HIGH COIIRT OF CHHAVnSGARH. BILA8PUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QXJCTDU8I & Hon'bte G. MIBHA.TODDm, JJ APPBLLANT: RESPONDBMT8: M.AfCI No. 214/2011 The Oriental Insurancc Co. Ltd. Vs. Sint Parwati Shyaxa aud others ns^A_ff3 Ho. ais/aoii APPBUAHT: RB8PONDENTS: The Oriental Iitsurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sint. Jainiati Kol and 3 others MISC. APPBIALS UNDER SBCyTION A73^>F TIfflS NOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr. Sandecp Shrivastava, Coiinscl for the appeUant/ Insiuaace Coinpany. Mr. Pravcea Tulsyan, counsel for respoiidents l to 5 in M.A(C). 214/2011 and respondents 1 to 6 in M.A(C). No. 215/ 2011. Mr.Qamrul Aziz, counsel for nespoiidents 6 & 7 ia M.A(C). No.214/2011 and respondents 7 & 8 in M,A(C ). No.215/ 2011. Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J. ORAL ORDER (01.08.2011) 2. Heard. These are two appeals filed by fhe Insuraace Company against the impugned award dated 18.11.2010 passed by tfae III AddL Motor Accident Claims Tribimal, Bil^pur (C.G) ia Claim Case No.82/2010 filed by Smt Parvati Shyam and ft. "^^^ '"^ ^ \-f ^ « C]aim Case No.83/2010 filed by Smt Jaymati Kol & otbcrs so far as it relates to fasteiui^ of liabiUty on the Insurance Coinpany as also quaatuin fixed by the Tribunal. M.A(C). No.214/2011 relates to Claim Casc No.82/2010 and M.A(C). No.215/2011 relates to Claim Caae No. 83/2010. Since bofh these appeals arise out the same accidcnt caused by Maruti Vaa bearu^ Regn.No. C.G. 10-BB/7313, they are beiag disposed ofby fhis comaion order. Brief facts of the case as pcr the vei-sioa of fee claimanls are that on 24.04.2009 deceased pcrsons Avtar Shyaia and Sarvau Kol were retumiag ftoin the weeKty market of viflage Chaparwaha on thc inotorcycle. Sarvaa Kol was driving fhe inotorcycle aiid Avtar Shyam was fhe pillion nder. Whea ttiey havc coxae on fhe niam road, a Maruti. Van bearing Regn.No.C.G.10/BB/7312 comiag fionk Achanakmar side in a rash and ncgl^ent manner dashed the niotorcyete of the deceased, aa a resiilt of which, both fhe occupants of fhe inotoTcycle i.e., Avtar Shyain and Sarvan Kol sustaitBd grievous uguries and died on the spot. Thc legal heirs/dcpendents of decc^ied Avtar Shyam have ffled CJaua pctittoa being Claim Case No.82/2010 u/s 166 of fhc Motor Vehlcles Act. for thc total award of coinpensation of Rs. 18,50,000/- whercas fhe legal representativcs/dcpendents ofdeceased Sarvaa Kol have fited Claim Petition being Claim Caae No. 83/2010 u/s 166 offhc Motor Vehicles Act for the award of total coxnpensation of Rs.19,50,000/-. The Learaed Claims Tribimal has held that Maruti Van bearmg Regu.No.C.G.10-A/5049 was iavohred in the accident, >'s ^\ as a result of wluch, bofh the occupauts of fhe naotorcycte Avter Shyam aud Sarvaa died and havii^ fhus hcld it has awarded Rs. 4,42,000f- in Claiiu Case No.82/10 aad Rs.4,42,,000/- which fhe claimaats are cntifled to recdved fix»infhe non-appUcaats jointty and scveralfy. 5. Leanied counscl for fhe appeUant has subinitted that fhere was contributoiy iiegl^cnce, for that purpose pcrBusaon u/s 170 offhe MVA was granted and furfher the vAiclc was bcing used for conuaercial purpose whereas the insurance polky was for private purposc, fherefore, thcre is biaaeh of conditions of fhe iasiirance poUcy, Hence, the insurance coaaipaay is not Uable to pay coiupcnsation. 6. We have heard lcamed counscl for fhe parties and have also gone fhroiigh fhe records of the Tribunal. 7. The Tribiiaal has fi-ained and adjudicated the formal issues onty wifh regard to the iavolvement of fhe vchicle ia question and the deafh of thc deceased persons ia fhe said accident as weB as fhe cntitleinent of fhc claiinants but no issues regarding contributoiy negligence and breach of coiiditions of tbe insurancc policy have been fi'ained. The leamjed Claims Tribunal ought to have fi-amed thesc tesues and shoiild havc conducted enquuy to ascertain fhc-Truth, but it h^ aot been doiie. Therefore, fhis Court is of fhe view fhat fhe matter requires reGonsideradon at fhe end ofthe Tribunal. 8. In vicw of flie above, we aUow these appeals ia part and aexnlt the -matter back to the Tribunal for decfafon afiBsh in the light oftheabovcobscn/ations. \ .'^ c^/ 9. Needless to inention fhat the parties shaM be allowed to acaend the pleadings, adduce further evidencc, fUe docuincnts or get the documents verified ete. aad lliercafter The Trfcuaal shaU make endeavor to concludc the procecdn^a aea ^uly as possibk preferably withia a period of 6 nionths. Thc parties shatl appear before fhe Tribunal on OS61 Septeiaber, 2011. The records of fhe Tribunal shaU be scnt back wifhout farther delay. •" 10. The amouat deposited by the msurance conipany m coinpliaace of fhe interun ordesr dated 21.02.2011 shaU be allowed to be withdrawn on fumishing securUy to the satisfaction of the Clauas Tribunal conceraed lay the claunants which shall be subject to flic decision of fhe claim. petition. XI. lu the result, the appeals are attowed in part. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao