c •Y-J^' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.) M.A.^0 /^8"^- / 2009 Division Bendl APPELLANT..................................jSoverdhanlal Nayak Age About 40 Years S/o Sahdevram Thakur R/o Villa- Ghitiya, Post- Faradfode, ^PLICANT•^sy^ Chowki-Suregaon,Tah. - Dondilohra, ^.^•'" '-^^^ - "l^^ w »..^^A p's'~Devri' District~ Durg(c-G-) ^. RESPONDENT. ^ON-APPLICANT VERSUS 1) Aashwan Kumar Thakur r7 S/o Firangiram Thakur, R/o Village - Ghitiya, Post- Faradfode, Chowki-Suregaon, Tah.- Dondilohra, P.S.- Devri, District- Durg(C.G.) (2) The Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Itd. Branch - Kamthi Line Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Appea! under Section 173 Ofthe Motor Vehicle Act 1988 ,,.^e & HIGHCQURTPFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 1482/2009 APPELLANT Goverdhanlal Nayak Versus RESPONDENTS Aashwan Kumar Thakur and another DB:- HON»BLESHRI I.M. QUDDUSI & HON»BLESHRI N.K. AGARWAL, JJ PRESENT:- Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for appellant. Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No.9. ORAL ORDER (30-11-2010) Per I.M. Quddusi, J. This appeal has bcen filed by the appellant/claimant against the award dated 5-1-2008 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, Distt. Durg in Claim Case No. 110/2006. Fact of the case in brief are that on 22-2-2006, the claimant was going on his motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No. CG 7 LA 0973 from Arjunda to Jhitia. Motorcycle was being driven by Firangi Thakur and the claimant was sitting as pillion rider. At about 12.30 hrs. when they reached near Power House at village Suregaon, a Max vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2, dashed their motorcycle, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. His both legs got fractured and he became permanent disabled. The incident was reported in the Police Station Devri. The claimant preferred a claim. petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 16,70,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained. "^sie's; ^^iyv^ ^?:JC\ |^s@|J ^^./ ^1»- Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claimant petition and he is entitled for compensation as claimed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that though the claimant was allegedly pillion rider but the person who was driving the vehicle was not made party and as such, the Insurance Company has no occasion to verify the fact whether the driver of the vehicle namely Firangi was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. We have perused the record of the case and found that in his statement, claimant Goverdhanlal (A.W. 1) has stated that he was filing the driving licence of Firangi. The driving licence of Firangi is available on record of the Tribunal. It is in the name of Firangi who was allegedly driving the motorcycle at the time of accident, issued by Licensing Authority, Durg (CG), driving licence number has been mentioned as No. /3866/DURG, original Licence No. NO/3866/DURG, original date of issue mentioned is 22/4/1988, which is valid upto 16-4-2009. In the record of the Tribunal also, the name of the owner is mentioned as Aswan Kumar Thakur son of Firangi Ram. Besides this, copy of the F.I.R. is also available on record which was registered by Police Station Devri (Police Post Suregaon) as Crime No. 25/2006 for offence under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. in which the date of alleged incident has been mentioned as 22-2-2006 at 12.30 and the time of lodging F.I.R. has been mentioned as 14.05 hrs. on the same date. In the F.I.R. it was mentioned that the driver of the vehicle namely Firangi and the claimant Goverdhan both fell down and were lying on the earth unconscious. Therefore, it cannot be said that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence unless proved otherwise by the Insurance Company. g;s;i; ^^,2^-5~—- ..^.^t [ K ^^^"'^^ %^ €y 6. Therefore, rejeeting the claim of the claimant on the ground that the claim could not be proved by the claimant is not found to be a reasoned order. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal in the light of the observations made above. 8. Therefore, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award dated 5-1-2008 and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh on merit in the light of the observations made above. 9. The Claim petition shall be restored to its original number and after giving opportunity to adduce evidence or to make amendment in the pleading by the parties or to file documents or to verify the documents already filed, the claim petition shall be decided afresh in the light of the observrations niade above. The claimant shall be allowed to implead the driver as a party and adduce evidence. 10. The Tribunal shall decide the matter expeditiously. 11. The parties present before this Court shall appear before the Tribunal on 5-1-2011. 12. Record of the Tribunal be sent back without any further delay. Sd/- I. M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge f