HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS APPELLANTS CLAIMAliTS RESPONDBNTS M.A.C. No. 1579/2009 1. Smt. MaUe Sodi, Wife of late Chula Sodi, aged about 26 years, Caste Goand 2. Hidama Sodi, son of late Bandi, aged about 50 years Caste Goand 3. Deva Sodi, son of late ChLila Sodi, aged about 7 years, Caste Goand All three are resident of village Gondpalli, Tahsil Siikma, police station Gadirash, District South Bastar Dantewada, CG Appellant no. 3 is minor. On his behatf his guardiaii (mofhex') Smt Malle Sodi, W/o Chula Sodi, aged about 26 years, resideut of village Gondpalli, Tahsil Sukma, District South Bastar, Dantewada^ CG Versus 1. Amajad Klaan @ Satim son of Ajmal Khan, aged about; 24 yers (Driver) 2, Raejo Khan, Son; of Abdull Razak, Aged about 30 years, (Owner) Both are resident of Patnampara Sukma, Tahsil Sukma, Distt. Sought Bastar, Dantewada, CG 3. The Orientol InsLirance Company Limited, Address Main Road Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Insurer) M.A.C. No. 1580/2009 1. Gonche Bhima, Son of late Deva, aged about 55 yers, Cast Goand 2. Gonche Dhiiruwa, Son of Late Gonche Ganga, aged about 10 years, Cast Qoand Both are resident of vUlage Qondpalli, Tahsil Sukma, District South Bastar Dantewada, C.G. Appellant No. 1 is minor. On his behalf his Guardian (Qrandfather) Gonche Bhima, son of Late Deva, aged about 55 yeai's, resident of village Qondapalli, Tahsil Sukma Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada, CG Versus 1. Amajad Kliaii@ Salim son of Ajmal Khan, aged about 24 yers (Driver) 2. Raejo Khan, Son of Abdull Razak, -^L^: APPKLLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDBNTS INon-iclaicaantsl APPELLANTS CLAI3MANT c-'" RBSPONDENTS (Non-claimantsl Aged aboyt 30 years, (Owner) Both are resident of Patnampara Sukma, Tahsil Sukma, Distt. Sought Bastar, Dantewada, CG 3. The Oriental InsLirance Company Lunited, Address Main Road Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Insurer) M.A.C. No. 1581/2009 Smt Madwi Bandi, wife of late Madwi Pojja, aged about 27 years, Caste Goand, Resident of village Goridpalli, Talisil Suknia, Police Station Gadirash, Distt Soufh Bastar, Dantewada, CG Versus 1. Amajad Khan @ Saltm son of Ajmal Khan, aged about 24 yers (Driver) 2. Raejo Khan, Son ofAbduU Razak, Aged about 30 years, (Owner) Both are resident of Patnatnpara Sukma, Tahsil Sukma, Distt. Souglit Bastar, Dantewada, CG 3. The Oriental Insumnce Company Limited, Address Main Road Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Insurer) M.A.C. No. 1582/2009 1. Smt. Wetti Hungi, wife of late Wetti Sukka, aged about 30 years, Caste Goand 2. Wetti Raja, Son of late Wetti Sukka, aged atoout 10 years. 3. Wetti Mangda, son of Late Wetti Sukka, aged about 7 years AU three are resident of village Gondpalli, TahsU S^ikma, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada, CG Appellant No. 2 and 3 are minor, on fheir behalf their guardian (mother) Wetti Hungi, W/o Wetti Sukka, aged abput 30 years, resident ofvillage Gondpalli, Tahsil Sukma, District South Bastar Dmitewada, CG Versus 1. Amajad Khan @ Salim son of Ajmal Khan, aged about 24 yers (Driver) 2. Raejo Khan, Son of Abdull Razak, Aged about 30 years, (Owner) Both are resident of Patnampara Sukma, Tahsil Sukma, Distt. Sought Bastar, Dantewada, CG <....t- 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Address Main Road Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (tasm'er) SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRBSBNT: Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Adv. for the appeUants, ShriH.P. Agrawal, Adv. forrespondent No. 3. None for respondents No. 1 aad 2 fhough seryed. ORAL ORDER (23-3-2010) Per N.K. Aeaanwal, J 1. M.A.C. No. 1579/2009, M..A.C. No. 1580/2009, M.A.C. No. 1581/2009 andM.A.C. No. 1582/2009 are being disposed of by this common order as all of them arise out of the saine accident. These appeals have been directed by the claimants against ftie order dated 23-9-2009 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada passed in Clalm case No. 78/2009, 77/2009, 76/2009, 75/2009 respectively. 2. The facts ofthe case are as under:- 3. The appelloiits herein preferred claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as fhe Act) and also filed applications under Section 140 of tfae Act claiming Rs. 50,000/- as interim compensation for fhe death ofthe deceased persons. Leamed Tribunal vide impugned order dismissed the said applications on fhe pleading of the respondent No. .3/Insurance Company that since the cheque issued by the owner of the vehicle against the premium has ah-eady been dishonoured, the Insurance Company is not llable to indemnify fhe insiired. 4. Shri Dhurandhar, leamed counsel for the appellants would submit that leamed Tribunal has erred in dismissing the applications without inaking a siimmaiy enquiry in fhis regard. He would furfher contend fhat at fhis stage leamed Tribunal ought to have awarded no fault compensation in claimants' favour and at least fhey are entitled for no fault compensation agatnst the driver and owner offhe vehicle but leamed Tribunal has disinissed the entire appUcation. 5. On the other hand, Shri Agrawal, leamed counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that leamed Tnbunal has righUy dismissed the applications since owner of the vehicle has not paid the premium and the cheque issued against the premium has already dishonoured and policy was already cancelled on 2-4-2007 i.e. before fhe date of accident. 6. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused 'the impugned order. 7. A perusal offhe order would reveal that leaned Tribunal has disinissed the applications without conduGtmg summary enquiry in fhis regard. In any case, tf on enquiry it is found that prima facie the Insurance Company is not liable, even then, the claimants are entifled for no fault compensation agamst the driver and owner of fhe vehicle and dismissal of the entire application is unwarranted and uncalled for. .^m^ 8. In view ofabove, in the considered Qpinionof fhis Court, the appeals deserye to be and are hereby aUowed and the impugned order dated 23-9-2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for considering the applications under Section 140 of fhe Act for no fault conapensation afresh after making summaiy enquiry and for passing fhe order in accordance with law on itsown merits, as early as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. A copy of this order be placed in the file of M.A.C. No.^ 1580/2009, M.A.C. No. 1581/2009 and M.A.C. No. 1582/2009. 10. No orderas to costs. ~Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge