BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C G u? WRIT PETITION $1 No BW OF 2009 PETITIONERS 1. Ibrahim Chikwa, S/o Jagannath NON—APPLICANTS Chikwa, Aged about 25 years, At N0. l 8E 2 presently resident of Jorapali, Thana— Kotara Road, Raigarh (C.G.), Permanent resident of Village~ Jharmuda, Thana— Farsabahar, District— Jashpur (C.G.). 2. Jagdamba Enterprises, Through— Amit Agrawal S/o Balmukund Agrawal, Aged about 27 years, R/o Sattigudi Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil 85 District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS’ RESPONDENTS 1. Sunil Kumar Agnihotri @ Banti S/o Ramprakash Agnihotri, Aged about 32 years, Occupation— Service (Munshi), R/o Subhash Nagar, Kotara Road, Raigarh, ITahsil 85 District— Raigarh (C.G.) CLAIMANT 2. Oriental Insurance Company, Branch Office— Itwari Baazar, Raigarh (C.G.) / NON-APPLCANT No. 3 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, 14/ K / é> DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND N CIRCUMDTANCES OF THE CASE. Er HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sin le Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Pras ant Kumar Mishra Writ PetitiDn £227? N0. 1347 i 2609 PETiTi0NERS Ibrahim Chikwa and another. Versus RESPGNDENTS Sunii Kumar Agnihatri, @ Banfi and ; another. 5hn‘ “Santosh Kumar Tiwari, coun3e! for the petiticnem Shfi Parag Koteeha, counsei far respandent No. 1. Shri Sudht‘r Agrawaf. caunseE for respnndent No. 2. ORAL $RDER (1 6.1 1 .2010} The petitioners are the driver and owner 6f the offending vehicie with mat whh an acEideht an 07I10f2007, The respondent No.1/c1aimant has maved a Eiaim hetitéon undar Sattian 166 of the Meter Vehicie Act. in the eaid ciaim eetiiien issues were framed by the 1H Adciitionai Meter Aeciderrt Ciaims Tribunat, Raigarh oh 05;!1 “”2008 am! thereafter the insurance \ ¥ Comparrg moveci an appiicatien under Grder 1 Ruie 1G (2) of C.P.C. for deietrng it‘s name err the ground that in the insurance potiey the peried er tneurance ts mentiened as from 12:55 hours on 08/16I200? t0 midnight at 07/10t‘2003, therefore it is apparent that the vehtete was not insurect at the time of aecident, therefeie.the‘tmp'teadrnent ef insurance Company is not necessary. (2) The M.A,C.T. has attewed the said prayer of insuranee Company. W, , ‘_] , ; (3) Learned counsei for the petitiener wouid argue that once issues have been framed the teamed Ciairns Tribunai eouid not have ordered for deietion ‘ of the narne of insurance Company and that findings are necessarily to he recorcied after recording evitience of parties on at! issues. He wouid further v . .5 ‘ & ‘z/ submit that deletiori of the name 0f 5nsurance Campany amounts to dismissa! cf claim as against the imurance Campany which is pars-e megal. (4) Learned tounset fsr the lnsurance Compariy wouid argue that on ihe basis sf the seriad wr'th spec‘mc timihg for which the vehécte was insured, it is appareht that the offsntting vehicie was hot insured at the time of accident; therefore the srder passed by the Tribunai does not sail for any interference. He has reiied en the judgment of Hon‘bte Supreme Court irr the matter of New indie Assaranee C9. itd. vs. Smt. Sits Eai and other reported in AIR t999 SC 3577 and ih the matter cf Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Sunita Rethr' and others reported in AIR 1993 SC 257. (5) Frorrr the oieeuments annexeit with the writ petition it wouid appear that the eteim petitioh was titee by the responeehtr‘ciaimaht en 11!03z‘2008, The petitioners have aireedy hied their written statement and have stated that the vehieie was insured on the date of accident. tssuee were framed by the Ciairns Tribunai 0n 05/1 112006 vide Annexure P/6. While tiiing their repiy to the insurance Company‘s appiication tinder Order 1 Ruie 1O of C.F.C. the petitioners have stated that the insurance Company‘s assertien te the effect that the vehicie was not insured at the time 0t aceident cannot be aecepted There is spectic deniai and pleadings in the repiy that for determining the issue as to whether insurance Company would be responsrbie to satrs‘y ‘he award, the presence of the insurance Company wouid he needed and the issue cannot be decided without recording evidence. L 1(6) The judgment reiied by teamed counsei insurance Company is to the effect that when speciiic time is mentioned in the poiicy, it becomes effective from that time and not from prevrous midnight The iegai position in “its i redard is Very ciear however that can oniy be a ground which can be and which has béen agitated by the mSurance Cempany amd i3 required t0 be decided at the em of the triaL Deietion 9f name af insurance Company midway and that too after framing of issues is not proper bocauoe thoparties have not loo eviderrce about the commencement of the poiicy. Moreover, deiotior: of the name of tho insurance Company wouio neoesearihr amount to rejection or ciiemiseai of the oiaim againet the ineurance Company, which again cannot be done ae after framing of ihe iseues, ihe eaio deietion wooio amount to pattiai judgment of the otaim petition wtthout recording evidence of the parties. (7) tn View of the above, the tmpugned order deserves to be and ie hereby set-aside in exercise of powers under Articte 227 of the Conetitution of tno‘ia. However, it is made otear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the issue as to whether the offending vehicie was insured or not at the time of accident and this ptea is ieft open to be decided by the Ctaims Tribunai at the end of triai and needless to say that it witt be open to at! the parties to raise at! contentions both factuai and iegai on the said issue. (8) With the above observation, the writ petition stands aiiowed. /