AEPELLANT IN THE HON1BLEH!GH COURT OF CHHATriSCARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)No.- |L|°^/ f008 :- ^THE ORIEMAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SADAR BAZAR JAGDALPUR, THROUGtI DIVISIONAL MANAGER, TtIE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., FRONT OF RAJENDRA PARK, G.E. ROAD PARAMANAND BHAWAN DURG, (INSURER OF TRUCK VEHICLE N0.- C.G. 17/H/1200) Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS :- /' ...^ ^- ..••'\K/V ^ ^••••"y.--" -^y %^ z. ^" 3. ^ ^" SMT. KOMIN BAI THAKUR W/0 CHHANNULAL THAKUR, AGE 32 YRS., KU. VANDANA THAKUR D/0 LATE CHHANNULAL THAKUR, AGE 12 YRS. KU. SUSHMITA THAKUR D/0 LATE CHHANNULAL THAKUR, AGE 8 YRS. KUNAL THAKUR S/0 LATE CHHANNULAL THAKUR, AGE 5 YRS. MINOR N0.- 2 TO 4 THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. KOMINBAI THAKUR, ALL RESIDENT OF PINAKAPAR, THANA & TAH. - GUNDARDEHI, DISTRICT - DURG C.G. RESPQNDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS ^' MAHESH KUMAR SAHU S/0 JOHAN SAHU, OCCUPATION- DRIVER, RESIDENT OF METGUDA, JAGDALPUR, DISTRICT - BASTER C.G. (DRIVER OF VEHICLE N0.- C.G. 17/H/ 1200) JANG BAHADUR SINGH SODI S/0 TRILOCHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF NAYAPARA GODAM ROAD, JAGDALPUR, DISTRICT - BASTER (REGISTERED OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.-C.G.17/H/1200) ..2.. t \^^ ..2.. APPEAL UNDER SECTTON'173 OF MOTOR VEHICT.F ACT 1988 t'-'ss^l "T'J] y. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: Hoa»bleI. M. QUDDUSI & Hoa»b!eG. MINKAJUDDIN, JJ APPBLLANT: RBSPONDBNTS: M.A(C). No. 1402/2008 The Oriental Insurance CompanY Ltd, Vs. Smt. Kemin Bai Thakur aad ofhers MISC. APPEAL UNDER 8EC"nON 173 C THE MCyTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr, Sudhir Agrawal. coiiasel for fhe AppeUant. Mr, Saatosh Yadu, counsel for fbe respondents 1 to 4. Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J. ORAL ORDBR (06.07.2011) 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insiiraace Coinpaay agaiast fhe unpugned award dated 31.07,2008 passed by fhe learaed II AddL Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Durg (C.G) ia Claun Case No, 1 13/2007 challengiag fhe quaatuni, 2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of fhe claimaats axe that on 02.10.2007 Chhannulal Thakur alongwith his fdend Devendra was goiag to Jagdalpur by luotorcycle bearing Regn.No. 17-B/0025. On the way at about 5.30 a.m., when they reached to vfflage Balega, one Truck beanng Regn.No.C.G. 17-H/1200 which was being driven by respondent no,5 ia a rash aad negUgent manner dashed fhe motorcycle from opposite direction, as result of which, deceased Chhanniilal died on fhe spot. At the time of accident, deceased was aged about 43 years. He was workiag as Lmemaa m Chhattisgah Electdcity Board aad was drawiag monfhly.salaiy of Rs. 12000/-. Besides fh& he was also earamg Rs.3000'/- from his own agricultural laads aad ^t 5. 6. by doiag electronic works privately. The claiinaats beiag dependents/ legal representatives have filed clami petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for fhe award of total compensation ofRs.39 lakhs onvarious heads. The learaed Clsdms Tribunal having regard to fhe facts situation aad evidence on record has awarded a total coinpensation of Rs.12.53,300/- holding fhat due to rash aad negUgent driviag of respondent no.5, fhe offendin.g Tnick stnick agamst fhe xiiotorcycle as a result of which deceased died aad fhere was no contributoiy negUgence on the part offhe driver offhe inotorcycle. Learaed Counsel for fhe appellaat has subiaitted fhat there was contdbutoiy negUgence but fhe Tribunal has given a perverse finduig on fhe basis of fhe statement of eye-witaess Budhram (A.W. 1) who deposed fhat fhe ofFendiag vehicle came on fhe wrong side. However, it was an after- fhought as nothuig has been nientioned ia fhe FIR about fhe wrong side of the offending vehicle. He furfher coutends fhat ia fhe spot inap also, fhere is no iadication fhat the vehicle was coicdng on wrong side aiid fherefore it was a case of head on coUision between fhe motorcycle aiid fhe Truck. It appears ftiat fhe Tribunal has not conducted aay enquiry to ascertam the facts as provided m Riile 226 of fhe C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 aud Sections 168 & 169 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Further, siace the claim petition was filed u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, fhe principles laid down in Scurla Verma (Smt.) -vs- Delhi Transpart Corporatton cmd another reported in (20W9) 6 SCC 121, have also not been followed by fhe Tribunal in applyiag the multiplier. The penal iaterest has also been iraposed which is also not sustamable. Considering fhe facts aiid circiimstaaces of fhe case, we feel that fhe matter reqiiires reconsideration at fhe end of the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall frame fhe issue of contdbutoiy negligence alongwith ofher issues and decide fhe saine acid for fh.at. enquity if necessaiy inay be conducted to aacertam the truth, It is stated fhat fhe widow is receiviag the pension after deafh of fhe deceased. This aspect as well as fhe coiBipassionate appoiatment if given shall also be considered. 8. Therefore, we allow fhis appeal ia part and remit fhe matter back to fhe Tnbuiial for decision afiresh m the light of fhe obsewations made herem.above, 9. Needless to mention fhat the parties shaU be aUowed to amend fhe pleadiags. adduce furfher evidence, file fhe docuinents or get fhe docuiaents verified etc and fhereafter fhe decision shall be taken afresh at fhe earliest. The records of fhe Tribuaal shaU be sent back wifhout farflier delay. The parties shatl appear before fhe Tribunal oai 10th Aueust. 2011. 10. The amount which has already been deposited by fhe AppeUaat shaU remam ia fixed deposit wifh aay NationaUzed Baak tiU fhe decision afi^esh is taken by fhe Tribiinal, II. In fhe result, fhe appeal is allowed m part, No order as to costs. _ Sd/- G.Minhajuddin LM.Quddusi Jud8e Judge Rao