IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COTJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR (C.G.) M.A. (-C) ^QC, /07 APPELIANT (Nbn-Applicant) tf<^ ^( ^9^.^-2' ...•-:5^^ ^•"',^^';>" \-fc" ^c^ '' ' ,.**' ^ A^k>' Kunwar Singh Sahu S/o Kriparam Sahu age 36 years R/o Panch Rasta, behind Karma School Supela,Bhilai P.S.Supela Distt-Durg(C.G) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle.Pick-up No. C.G. -07-C/1358) Sujit Sao S/o Late Sharda Prasad Sao Age 28 years R/o R-10 Kurud Road,Kohka Bhiali Distt-Durg (C.G.) (Owner of offending Vehicle.Pickup No.C.G.-07 -C-1358) KESPONDENTS (APPLICANT) (NON APPLICANT No.3) VERSOS = !q-i. %-7. Dhanauram Satnami S/o Balakram Satnami age 35 years R/o Jogidipa P.S. Sarsiwa Distt.Raipur The New India Insurance Co. Branch Office Parakh Bhawan, Station Road Durg, Distt- Durg (C.G.) (Insurance Co.1 of offending vehicle pick up No. C.G.-07-C-1358) AEPEAL U/S 173 of MOTOR VEHICLE ACT -.,*Whtl.. HIOH OOURT OF CHHATnSGARHATBIIASPOR MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 1206/2007 APPBUANTS Kunwar anofher Sm^ti Sahu and Versus RESPONDENTS Dhanairam S^nami and another SB:- Hon. Shn N.K. Agmwal, J PBESEMT:- Shri Uttain Pandey, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Anand Pandey, Advocate far respcaideat No. l. Shri Soiirabh Sharaaa, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (4-3-2010) Per N.K. Aaarwal, J 1. The instant appeal is directed by ttie driver and £heowner against the award dated 18-7-2006 passed by tile End Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribimal, Baloda Bazar whereby and whereunder, the Tnbunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,46,900/- to fhe dalmants and has exonerated the respondent no. 2/ insurance company from its Uability to indeDinify. 2. The facts of the case tn briefwe as under:- 3. As per the claimant, he is mason. On 12-4-2005 at S.< p.m., he was going on a motorcycle of a person and near poultry farm at vUlage Kasdol, a pick-up van being drhren by its driver in a rash and negligent mann^-, dashed the motorcycle, as a result of whlch hls leg got fi-actured ia two places and he suffered permanent dlsabllity. He was eamii^ Rs. 5,000/- per month and claimed Rs. 12,08,000/-, for fhe injiiries sustained In tfae said accident. . 4. Appellants ffled fheir written statements and demed the all^ations of the claimant and pleaded that the appeBant No. 1 was not driving fhe vehlcle radhly and negligenfly. 5. Respondent No. 2/tnsurance company also filed its written statement and denied its liabilily mafcdy on the leunquj, arpjo pjoosj sip pue PJBSSB pauSndnn sqi pasiuaj •saRied aq^ JQJ issunoo pauiBai pjeaq aA^q i •OT •i(sajge uoispap JQJ ^Bunquj, ai^ 01 ![3Bq psu.imai sq Ssvi 3SV3 sq^ 'arojaiaqj, 'asBo wy. ui saonsjap Aio^ru®issn giijAoad pue 8up[Bi OT paAudsp s^ ^UBduioo/^UBnaddB sqi 'aiojaisqi 'pire pamsui ^ou SBA spiqgA ai(i yBq^ ysej aio jo siseq 3tp uo PJBAB stp psssBd SBH leunquj. paiueai soms }Bip iimqns pinoA »nq ^usppoB jo a^ep aip uo spiqaA guipusjgo jo ^su si.0 SuuaAoo g-y "xg aouejnsui jo ionod jo aouenssi papitap^ s®qArediaoo aouejnsui /g -ojs[ luapaodsai aqi joj psunoo paureai 'BOKreqs qqBjnog uqg •6 'pajnsin SBA apiqsA sq^ SB uopBSiradmoo Aed 01 Aii[iqBn s^i mo>g Xuedmoo K>cre.insui |D aoTiBJtauoxa aqi pssoddo os^e sreq sq j3A3Aoq 'pjBjMB 3vp. paijoddns tUBimeio/i -o^ tuapuodssj aqt JQJ lasunoo paa.resi 'Aapared pueuv uqg 'pueq jaipo srp UQ "8 •MB[jo aAs aqi ui paq si 'ieunquj, SIR Aq passad pjBws sip 'aiojo.iaqj, -ssunft^ pres aq). 3Ao.id 01. paupirexa SBA jozoop ou SB ipnros^ui 'uodnajsq^ paunooo ssoi ^tre^pisaj sxo pu®paureisns saunfui sq^ jo joojd ui aoaapiAa aiqissTmpB &UB Suiaq aiaqt ^noti^iA ^UBUJIBP sqi Aq psure^sns ssunftn paSsne STR joj uoiiBsusdmoo s®rans pressjoje aqi papjBWB seq iminqpj, paujeaq -apis jaqSiq uo ^i§up{ooqs si iBunquj, aqi Aq pspjBA^ ^unoiiiB aq^ '{eaddB ^UB^SUI aq^ UT paig g-y •xg aoaejnsm jo Ainod spiA ^uappo® jo aaiR aq^ ^B pa.msui SBM apiqaA atp iwqi iimqns ppioA 'siireiiaIdB sq^ joj psunoo paujBsi 'AspiiBj meun uqg -/,. •Aj.iliqran s-i.1 mofl % paiBjauoxa pire jaMJp ptre jaiuuo ato ^nraispm o^ siqBti ^ou si Atredmoo aouKinstq aip IBIR ppq leunquj. sqj, "aopBondd^ jo a^Bp SIR CTOJJ mnmre jad %g jo S^BJ aq^ fB ^sajaiur LRTA 8UOIB -/006'9fr'S 'SH JO uo^susduioo papjBAB 'sp^m suoissimqns pxre paoraid i0U3i.Bm 'psi souapiAa 3-Ip JO AURTUOS 380p B uo {Bunquj, smreio paxxreaq -9 •-'(iredraoo soiiBjnsui/g -ON luapuodssj rp.iM pan-ism ^ou SBA spiqaA gmpusgo 3tp ^rp punojS 12, 13. 14. 15. 16. It is now not in. dlspute that the vehide was insural with the respondent No. 2 vlde Ex. A-3 at the time ofaccident and leamed Tribunal has wrongly exonerated tiie respondent No. 2 / insi.iiancecompany firom its UabUily to pay compensation on the grouad fhat fhe vehicle was not / insured at the time of accident. It is also not in dispute that the insurance company is entitied to take statutoiy defences under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accopdingly, fhe impugaed award dated 18-7-2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribiiaal for decision afresh. The Tnbuaal is directed to conslder aad decide the claim case afresh, in accordance wtth law, on its own mertts, as early as pos^ble, preferabty within a period of fhree months fi-om the date of receipt af»copy ofthis order. The parties are pemutted to adduce additional evideaiees, ifsoadvised. The observations; if any, made hereinabove, sfaall not be construed as opinion offhe Court on merit. The appeal is allowed to the aboive extenfc No order as to costs. The R^istay is directed to send back tfae record, requisitiond Scoia the Tribunal, forthwifh. Sd/- ' N.K. Agrawal Judge