APPELLANT DEFENDANT No. 2 RESPONDENTS AT BILASPUR 1) 2) Egg Ashish Matthias, son of W.P.Matthias, aged 43 years, residént of M.I.G. 190, Padmanabhpur, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) Owner of the Vehicle VERSUS Smt. Annapurna Singh, Wd/o late Shri Arun Kumar Singh, aged 32 years. Kum. Anukriti Singh, daughter of late Shri Arun Kumar Singh, aged 6 years. Abhinav Singh, son of late Shri Arun Kumar Singh, aged 2 years. Respondents No. 2 8G 3 are minors represented through her rgother guardian No.1 S. Annapurna Singh. Ram Mohan Singh, S/o Shri Thakur Bajrang Singh, aged about 68 years, MISC. APPEAL (C) No. LSTE/ 2009 3) t 4) 65 .1 )n—V’? All residents of Power House, — 2, Bhilai, P.S. Chhawni, Tahsil 8a Dist. Durg Camp (C i G .) ..... Claimants Alok Matthias, son of Wilson Matthias, aged 35 years, resident of M.I.G. 190, Padmanabhpur, Tahsil 8a Distt. Durg (C.G.) . Driver The New India Insurance Company Limited, Nandni Road, Near Dena Bank, Bhilai, RS. Chhawni, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) ..... Insurer mt MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UIS 173 OF THE C MOTOR VEHICLE M ACT 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR / (‘3) M. A. 1C! No. 1553 of 2009 W % Appellant Ashish Matthias Versus Respondents Smt. Annapurna Singh 8r, others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi 8a Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri P. R, Patankar, Advocate for the appellant/owner. Shri R. S. Patel, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants. None for the respondent No.5. Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent No.6/Insurance Company. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. l. This appeal ariaes from the impugned award dated 31st December, 2008, passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg in Claim Case No. 54/2008, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,27,SOO/— to the claimants, fixing the liability on the owner to pay the compensation, exonerating the insurance company from any liability to pay the amount of compensation. 2. The respondents No.1 to 4/claimants have also filed the cross objection/appeal dated 3.3.2010. 3. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that in the night of 31“ December, 2006 deceased Arun Kumar Singh was invited in the house of the non—applicant No.1 for dinner. in the late @,o night while Arun Kumar Singh was returning to his home on the motorcycle, bearing registration No. C.G. O7 LC/3015, which was being driven by the non—applicant No.1 and the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider, due to the rash and negligent driving of the non—applicant No.1, the pillion rider Arun Kumar Singh fell down from the motorcycle and received grievous injuries. He was taken to the hospital where the doctors have declared him as dead. The offence of the incident was registered at Police Station Chavni against the non—applicant No. 1 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The claimants, being legal heirs (widow, minor daughter 8L son and father) of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for award of a total compensation of 32,25,000/ - under various heads. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record held that the motorcycle was being driven in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy and thus held that the appellant/owner is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,27,500/— to the claimants along with interest @ 6% p.a. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned award and the papers available on record. 7. The Claims Tribunal imposed liability upon the owner on the ground that the pillion rider was not a third party and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. We have found that the insurance company had MWWWtmimm-mm insured the vehicle under a motorcycle package policy. It may be noticed that the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Head Office, New Delhi vide circular No. HO/MOT(U/W)/282/2008~ 09/CR-6473, dated 25th November, 2009 in regard to “Liability of insurance companies in respect of occupant of a private car and pillion rider in a two wheeler under standard motor package policy (also called comprehensive policy)” to the effect that vide circular dated 16.11.2009 the IRDA has confirmed that insured’s liability in respect of occupant carried in a Private Car and Pillion Rider carried on two wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. Therefore, it was advised to immediately review all cases where appeal has been field on the grounds that Insurer is not liable for occupants of Private Cars and Pillion Rider in a 2-wheeler under the Motor Package Policy’ If the appeal is based solely on these grounds then it'must be immediately withdrawn. 8. In the instant case, since the insurance company has been exonerated and the appeal is filed by the owner of the two Wheeler, we are of the opinion that the matter should be remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for reconsideration and to give its findings afresh. 9. For the reasons stated herein above, we dispose of this appeal setting aside the impugned award dated 31.12.2008 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh. 10. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend than-pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get the docurr'ients verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made m by thc Tribunal in regard to the liability as well as the quantum Without being iniluenced by its earlier decision, as We have not examined the question of quantum; it depends upon the evidence to be led by the parties. 11. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 3rd March, 2011. 12. Accordingly, the instant appeal, flled by the owner as well as the cross objection/appeal, filed by the claimants, stand disposed of. l\Io order as to costs. Sd/— MiShra Prashalr‘llt‘l;umar Thaku;