HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HQN'BL£SHRLRAJESHWARLALJHANWAR, J. M.A. (Cl No. 1043 of 2009 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. Versus Munna Lal Pal and others. ORDER Pronouncement of order 2^.08.2010 Sdi- R.L. Jhaiiwar Judge '?-.- t.<F?Si ^- •^ £:-i,SfiEfc 1 -^y ,^ <} HIGH COURT OF CHHATTLSGARH : BILASP'UR ^saw- SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, J. IVIisc. Appeal (0 No. 1043of2009 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through - Manager, Ravi Bhawan, GE road, Raipur (INSURER) VERSUS 1. Munna Lal Pal s/o Late Maikulal Pal, aged about 48 years. 2. Smt. Usha Devi s/o Shri Munnu Lal Pal, aged about 45 years, both R/o Awaspara, Sarona, Distt. Kanker C.G. (Claimants) 3. Manesh Kumar Dhru, s/o l-1inchharam, R/o Mahuabhara Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (Driver and Owner) APPEALUNDER SECTION 1730F THE IUOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appearance: Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, counsel forthe appellant. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Parag Kotecha, counselforthe respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon>!».08.2010) This is insurance appeal directing against the impugned award dated 13.03.2009 passed bys the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 68/2008 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- along withinterest at 6% per annum in a death case. ,» 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that on 01.03.2008'the deceased - Dilip Kumarwas going on his motor cycle bearing registration No. C.G. 15 ZE/ 0219 towardshis house situated at Sarona. At the same time, motor cycle bearing registration No. C.G. 05 E/3909 (hereinafter referred to as the offending motor cycle) being driven by respondent No.3 rashly and negligently hit the motorcyele on which the deceased coming to his house, as a result of clash between two motor eycles, Dilip Kumar received grievous injuries on his head, hands, legsand eyes and he was p< •^t. w;";%.. ^' /.",. ~'^ about to refer to the K.D.Hospital, Kanker but on way he succumbed to the injuries. 3. Claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,97,000/- was filed pleading that on the date of accident the deceased was 20 years; he was earning Rs.8000/- by grocery shop; due to his sudden and untimely death they were thrown into darkness and suffered irreparable loss in all respects i.e. mentally, economically and physically. 4. By filingtheir writtenstatements, the respondent No.3 and the present appellant denied the averments made in claim petition. 5. The Tribunal on close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it, holding that the deceased - Dilip Kumar died on aceount of injuries sustained in the motor accident on 01.03.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligentdriving ofthe driverofthe offending motor cycle and the insurance has not been able to prove in rebuttal, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month and deducting % therefrom fixed (he annual income ofthe deceased at Rs.18,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal worked out the total compensation to Rs.1,90,000/- thereby awarded in favour ofthe claimants. 6. The only pointurged in this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant -insurance company is that on the point that the driver of the offending motor cycle was not holding valid licence the Tribunal has not afforded any oppQrtunity of hearing to the insurance company and without giving any opportunity to lead evidence on the above point in support of the pleadings of the insurance company, the Tribunal closed the evidence. No'other point was urged. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondentJMo.3 supported the impugned judgment and argued that the Tribunal has on many occasions afforded number of opportunities to the insurance company to lead evidence insupport of its pleadings. 8. I have heardlearned cpunsel forthe parties at length, perused the record ofthe Tribunal including the impugned order. 9. It is evident from the order sheet dated 5.6.2008 that the claim petition was filed on that date. On 22.07.2008, counsel for the insurance company asked for time to file written statement and on 30.09.2008 •'"f^- written statement was filed, which shows that after filing ~of written statement the appellant - insurancecompany came to know that what is against it and what should be proved by it, therefore, the insurance company was required to be ready to produce documents and adduce its evidence. After framing of issues, the evidence of the claimants was recorded and thereafter closed the same. Thereafter, thrice adjournments were sought by the insurance company to produce'its documents and witnesses. On 12.12.2008, the insurance company was given last opportunity even then it did not adduce its evidence, therefore, the evidenceof the appellant was closed and fixed for final arguments on 19.12.2008. Even on that date, since the appellant could not produce-any document nor adduce evidence, the case was fixed for argument on 15.01.2009, on that date the appellant has filed an amendment application (I.A.No.1) underOrder6Rule 17ofC.P.C. which was allowed. One more application (I.A.No.2) was filed alongwith I.A.No.1 bythe appellant before the Tribunal to record its evidence on the same date but the same was rejected by the Tribunal. Thereafter, again two more opportunities were given to the appellant to hear arguments. On 09.02.2009 again the appellant has filed one more application under Order 12 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and in that application time was given for arguments and on the same date the appellant has filed one application under Section 170 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act but the same has been rejected. After hearing the arguments, the learned Tribunal has passed an order on 10.02.2009 and rejected the application filed under Order 12 Rule 2 C.P.C. fixing the case for final hearing on 13.02.2009 and again two dates were fixed for final hearing and ultimately on 13.03.2009 the award was passed. 10. A perusal of the above makes it crystal clear that sufficient and adequate opportunities were given to the insurance company to adduce evidence and produce whatever document and ultimately the right of adducing evidence was closed. It is pertinent to mention here that ^gainst the above orders no revisionwas filed, therefore, that orders became final. 11. The impugned award was passed only after affording opportunity to the parties. Therefore, it cannpt be said that no opportunity was given to theappellant to adduce its evidence. Despite numberof opportunities were given to the insurance company, it has not led any evidence within stipulated time. Thus, the Tribunal was left with no option but to close the a?pnf .lEAMIEllf 'T^ -/PS ______ •psssiujsip Aqejoq si pue 8q 0} 8|qei| si IUGIU p pioAsp Gu.isq Auediuoo souBjnsui SL|} Aq p3|y lesddB ayi ')|ns8j GLJI u| 'gi. •pjeMB peuBndLui SL|) ui JQJJS pue Aiiiujyu! 'A}UB|n69jj! Aue }no luiod 0} oiqe uesq )ou sei; }ue||sdde sq) jo^ |esunoo peujesi 'peujsouoo si leunqui 8L|t p pJBMB psuBnduji 94} isuieBe p9|y 6u!sq|B8dde siqiSB JB^ 03 'St •)JS|B pue Apesj )QU SBM SUOISGOOO ^UBLU uo Auediiioo eouejnsui 94} (nq souepiAa eonppe 0} ssssaujiM Sti eonpojd 0} Apesj pue ]j8|e uaeq aAeq p|noi|s Auediuoo souBjnsui eqj. 'aojoj ou seq Auediuoo eouBjnsu! 94} O) pspjoye SBM ^iunijoddo ou )eq} uoi}U9)uooSqi 'Aped 34} ^o souQpiAs