IN THE HON'BLB HIGH CQURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. l?^ of 2011 ^NiSlQII B©|gG,'|. APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT No.3 "^ RESPONDENTS t, :: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Bramharoad Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) Versus :1) Rajkumari Sahu, W/o. late Srawan Sahu, aged about 23 years, :2) Akash Sahu, S/o. Srawan Sahu, aged about 5 years ^•^^y^ :3) Ku. Anjali D/o Shri Srawan ^^y^\\ Sahu, aged about 3 years ^^^y\/> ^~/&N ^•^' ^' o;Q< Respondents 2 and 3 through their natural guardian mother respondent No. 1 :4) Ramkhelawan Sahu, S/o. late Shri Sukhaee Sahu, aged about 65 years, :5) Smt. Shanti Bai, W/o. Ramkhelawan Sahu, aged about 60 years, All R/o. Surajpur (Mahuapara) Police Station & Tehsil Surajpur District Surguja (C.G.) APPLICANT No. 1 to 5 :6) Manoj Kumar Kurre, S/o. Madhav Kurre, Caste Harijan, Vehicle owner, Village Pachira, Police Station & Tehsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) NON-APPLICANT N0.1 -s :7) Balram S/o. Sukhdeo, R/o. Village Radhapur, Police Station & Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) NON-APPLICANT No.2 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. •a^^^^ /K\ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR APPBLLANT: RBSPONDBNTS: DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI & Hon*ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M.A(Cl No. 156/2011 United India Insuraace Coinpany Ltd., Vs. Rajkuinari Sahu aad six ofhers MISC. APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OP THB MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 hz? Appearance: Mr, H. B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for fhe appeUaat. Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, counsel for respondents 1 to 5, Per I.M.OUDDUSL J. Heard. ORAL ORDBR (20.07.2011) This appeal has been filed by fhe Insuraace CoDipany agamst fhe impugned award dated 25.09.2010 passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Siirajpur, District Sarguja (C.G) in Claim Case No.29/2009 so far as it relates to fastening of Uabillty upon the msuraace Company to pay compensation to fhe claimants. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of claunaats are fhat on 17.04.2009 Shravaa Sahu was comiag to Siirajpur from Deonagar. On fhe way, between Paraspara and Krishnapur, a Jeep bearing Regn.No. C.G.15-ZD/2372 which was being driven by non-appUcaat no,2 Balaram, in a rash aad negUgent »/^ )f » ^^r'-if.^^ :^^% t! ^ inaaner, dashed the inotorcycle, as a result ofwhich deceased Shravaa Sahu ond piUion rider Pradeep Kuniar @ Pardesi feU down, The deceased sustaiaed grievous injuries ia fhe said accident aad died as soon as he was brought to fhe Surajpur Hospital. At fhe time of accident, fhe deceased was a young uiaa. of 26 years old. He was earaing Rs. 10,000/- per nionfh by seUiag milk and vegetables. The claunaats beiag dependents/ legal representatives of fhe deceased have filed clami petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for fhe award of total conipensation ofRs. 17,60,000/~ on vadous heads. The leamed Clainis Tribiinal haviag regard to fhe facts situation aad inaterial on record, held fhat fhe ofifendiag Jeep was iavolved ia the accident in which deceased Shravaa Sahu died. Having thus held, it has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- with penal iaterest @ 12% per annum to fhe claunarits which fhey are entitied to receive finom. fhe non- appUcants jointly or severaUy. We have heard learaed coiinsel for fhe pardes and have also gone fhrough fhe records of fhe Tribunal as weU as the contents of fhe impugned award. On perusal of fhe records, we have found fhat ia paragraph 10 of fhe written statement, fhe appeUaat has speci&cally taken fhe plea fhat fhe driver of the Jeep NO.C.G.15-ZD/2372 was not haviag vaUd aad effective driviag Ucence on the date of accident. Accordiag to the leamed counsel for the appeUaiit, fhe vehicle was beiag used as Taxi but the driving Ucnece was not for driving a traasport vehicle. Furfher more, the iasiiraace poUcy was also Uability poUcy of a private car. Siace no issue was framed regardiag ^^••^•^^:...' '-''<;'k, ^^•^.A.^ "^\ ^•S:K^ Q. Rao breach of condition of Insurance Policy, drivmg licence, permit etc., we are of the opioion fhat fhe raatter reqiiires reconsideration at fhe end of fhe Tribiuial. 6. Therefore, we aUow the appeal in part aad remit fhe matter back to fhe Tribunal for decision afi^esh, The Tribunal shall frame issue regardiag breach of insuraace poUcy aad flien only fix ftie UabiLily to pay coiapensation. 7. Needless to inention fhat fhe parties shaU be atlowed to amend fhe pleadings, adduce further evidence, file fhe docunients or get the documents verified etc and thereafter fhe decision shall be taken afresh by the Claiins Tribiiual. The rccords of fhe Tribunal shall be sent back forthwifh. 8. The amount which has already been deposited by fhe appeUant shall reinam in a fixed deposit tiU a fresh decision is taken by the Tribunal. 9. In fhe result fhe appeal is allowed ia part. No order as to cost(s).^ Sd/- | G. Minhajuddin I.M.Quddusi 1 Judge Judge |