HIGH COURT QF CHHATTESGARH: BILASPUR Bench: Hon?bie Shri Dillp Deshmykh, J. M.A.CNo.512of2006 The New Sndia Assurance Company Limlted, Through Divisjonai Manager; The New india Assurance Company Limited, Second FSoor, Rama Trade Center, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Kalyan Singh, S/o Veer Singh, aged about 44 years, Occupation-Teacher, r/o vilt. Gunderdayhi, Post Gunderdayhi District Durg (CG) 2. Ms. Jaswant KaurD/o Shri B. Singh, age unknown, R/o Bamkin Nagar Siiiguds, Dragiing [West Bengzd) 3. Raj Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Shri Chunnlial Sharma, aged about 26 years, R/o ViSiage Jahob; Post Hamirpur (Himachal Pradesh), Presentiy Resident of Sewak Road, Police Station Bhakti Nagar, Siligudi, Dargiing QAtest Bengai) Miscejlaneoijsappea[underSectloo173oftE^^^ Present: Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsei for the appeliant Shri S.K. Guha, counsei forthe respondent No.l/claimant. Respondents No.2 & 3 are not ser^ed. ORDER (Passedon 29.08.2008) With the consent of the parties, the appeal vvas heard finaily today at the stage ofadmission. 2. The Xf!th Additionai iVioto.r Accjdents Claims Tribuna! (FTC) Durg (henceforth the Tnbunal') has in ciaims case No.98/2005 vide award dated 31.07.2006, avvarded compensation of Rs.60,000/- against the appelianVinsurer. 3. Brief facts are tnat on 10.08.1999 i.e.. on the date of accident, the orfending vehicle bearing No. WB 73/6076 (hereinafter referred to as the tvehic!e') was driven by Rajkumar Sharma, respondent No.3 and owned by Ms. Jaswant Kaur; The claimant, who was riding a motorcycle v^ith his son Kuideep, sustained grievous injuries due to the accident. 4. The appeilant/insurer had pieaded that the vehicle was not insured by it on the date of the accident. Learned counsei for the appeiisnt urged that Appellant jnsyrer Respondents CSaimajit fOwiier) (Driver) / ./ ^. ^ the seizure memo Ex. P-17 did not shovv' that the vehscie was insured by the appeiiant on the date of accident. it vvas further urged that the Tribunal proceeded ex parte against Ms. Jaswant Kaur, the o\wer of the vehlcie without sen/ice of notice on her. Learned counsel for the appeliant submitted that thus no material was piaced by the owner before the Tribuna! to show that the vehicle was insured under a poiicy of insurance issued by the appeiiant. Therefore, it was impossible for the appellanVinsurer to iead evidence to prove that the vehicle was not insured by it. Despite this, the appeiiant/insurer had examined Lyod Johnson (N.A.W-1) who had stated that the vehicle was not insured by the appeiianVinsurer. On thls premise, it was urged that the Tribunal committed an iflegaiifr/ in recording the finding that the vehicie was insured by the appellant on the date of accident and in fastening Siability on it to psy compensation. 5. A perusai of the record of claims case No. 98/205 shows that the Tribunal had proceeded ex parte against Ms. Jasv\/ant Kaur, owner of the vehicle on 25.04.2000 on the ground that notioe was served on her. However, a perusai of the record shows that no such notice was sen/ed on Ms. Jaswant Kaur. The record further shows that the notice issifed eariier on Ms. Jaswant Kaur had returned unserved v^ith the endorsement that the addressee vv/as not found at the address. Thus, the Tribunal acted iliegaliy in proceeding ex parte against the owner of the vehicle and in fastening iiabs!'jty on the insurer vvithout se^ice of notlce on the owner ofthe vehicie. 6. In this view of the matter, the impugned award passed by the Tribunai is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribuna! for proceeding afresh from the stage of notice to the owner of the vehlcle in accordance with law. 7. In this view ofthe matter, the appeai is ailowed. The impugned a^vard dated 31.07.2006 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the X!it Additionai Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai (FTC) Durg for proceeding afresh from the stage of notice in accordance with lavi/ on the owner ofthe vehicte. Sd/- Priya ^Raossr' .bmukt1