IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT QF CHDHATTiSGrAfeH AT BILASFUR A M.A.(C) No. ... ^.^... OF200't (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs.3.58.000/-) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEmCLES ACT. 1988. DNsioR asncft •^1 ^. APEELANT fON- APPLICANT 'NO.^S^ RESPONDENTS (APPLICANT) :1. B.B.^° y?«S»®....^^s^ ,^ sw .....^•<r ^>y- ^••••< Jnited India Insurance Compaay Limited, Divisional- Office, Korba, Tah. & Distt- Korba,(CG) VERSUS Krishnapal Bhardwaj, S/0- Shankarlal Bhardwaj', aged- 20years, R/0- Kohdiyapara, Korba, Through: Next fi-iend- Shri Shankar Lal Bhardwaj S/O-Shri Jethuram Bhardwaj, aged-53years R/0- Dhengunala, Kohadiya, Tah. & Distt.- Korba (CG) ( NON- APPLICANT ^-:^ ^ 1) Biharilal pathak, S/0- Shri Bhagwan Prasad Pathak, aged- 42years, Caste-Brahman, R/O-Podi Uproda, P.S.-Bango, Hall Miikam-Sumedha, P.S.- Bankimongra, Tah.-Katghora, Distt.-Korba (CG) (Driver) (^0N-APPLICANTN ).2) -^3->^ Sarymangala Construction Corporatipn, Proprietor- Rajkumarar Agrawal, Adress- 106, Transport Nagar, Korba, Tah. & Distt.-Korba/Mohsin Bhawan Gurunank Road, Raipur, Distt.-Raipur (CG)(owner) HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH, BILASPUR DB: APPELLANT: RESPQNDENTS: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI & Hon'ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M. A (C) No.832/2008 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Krishnapal Bhardwaj and others vS MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr. Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Prakash Tiwari, counsel for respondent No. 1. Mr. Mirza Kesar Baeg, counsel for respondent no.3. Per I.M. OUDDUSI, J, ORAL ORDER (05.07.2011) 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 04.05.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G) in Claim Case No.225/2007. 2. Cross objections have also been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the award. 3. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the injured/claimant (respondent no.l herein) are that on 07.03.2007 respondent no.l was going to Korba from Bankimoangra by Motorcycle Hero Honda bearing Regn. No. C.G.12-A/5045, as pillion rider and Dinesh Komare was - driving the motorcycle. On the way near Anand Nagar Bridge, a Truck bearing Regn.No.C.G.04-0/1146 (for short "Offending Truck??) came from opposite direction in rash and i/f"~ ^^ 1 ^il^^ t % %:(i^' i Fj ^ .>'. „,,„„-./' ^/ ^' negligent manner and dashed the Motorcycle from wrong side because of which, rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained serious injures. They were brought to the SECL Hospital where Dinesh Komare died. Looking to the critical condition, respondent no.l was referred to CIMS Hospital where he got treatment. He lost his mental condition and also lost his sight in both the eyes. The claimant became permanently disabled due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, he has filed claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act through the next friend (father) claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.46,91,410/- on various heads. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal held that the offending vehicle in question was involved in the accident due to which the clainiant sustained serious injuries and became permanently disabled and there was no breach of conditions of the Insurance Policy of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal thus having regard to the facts situation has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,58,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum which the claimant is entitled to receive from the non-applicantsjointly or severally. 5. We have gone through the records of the TribunaL On perusal of the record we feel that though the claimant has sustained injuries in the said accident and produced reports of X-Rays, medical prescriptions and other documents regarding his treatment and expenses incurred thereon, yet the .doctor who has issued the disability certificate has not been examined to prove the disability. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not conducted proper enquiry as ^\ provided in Sections 168 & 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal. 6. Hence, we allow this appeal in part and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. The parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, flle documents pr get the documents verified etc., and thereafter decision shall be taken afresh at the earliest. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 11th August, 2011. The records of the Tribunal shall be sent back without further delay. 7. The amount which has already been deposited by the Insurance Company, shall remain in a fbced deposit in a Nationalized Bank till the award afresh is passed by the Tribunal. 8. Since the appeal is directed to be remitted back to the Tribunal, the cross objection filed by the Tribunal has become infructuous. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ^^L Rao Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge apip'-