BEFORE THE HON'BLE H1GH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH B1LASPUR M.A.CCINO. T.^ \ t1 MiSCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECT10N 1 73 OF THE MOTOR VB^ICLE ACT. 1988 APPELLANTS 0-A^MANTS T 3. •^.T^ n . ° ,!u, V- - tt% ^ — t, ^^. l.-^yT- RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. 2. --Xgasiya Bai widow of Late Bhola Singh, aged about 22 years, Ram Singh, aged about 42 years, son of Paksoo Ram caste Gond, .^•^' K:^'^y^" ^S^SQ .-? -^ ^^^^•••^' "" Capsi Bai aged about 40 years, wife of Shri Ram Singh Gond. Atl are the permanent resident of vittage Kohka, P.S. Ramnagar, Distt. Anuppur. presently resided at Chingrajpara, Near tempte, Distt. Bitaspur (C.G.) tamkhjtawan Gond, aged about 42 years, son of Punawa Singh Gond, resident of Double Stor/ Qtr No. 693, Jamuna Coltier/, P.S. Bhalumada, Distt. Shahdol. <0wner and driver of Suiuki Motorcvcle No. MP18E6150) The Divisional Manager, New Indi'a Insurance Company Umited, Shahdol, fhrough - the Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Umited, On the UJ.t. ^ 3 ^ Bank, Bus Stand, Bitaspur (C.G.) {(nsurer of Suiuk-i MotorcYfte No. MP J8E 6150} Hiai^y ljOB^-ftiATTIS6»?!aH^^ E>IVISIONBENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.OU&&USI& HOhi'BLE MR. 6ULAM MINHA*7Ut?t)IN. JJ. M.A.tCl No.844/2008 Appellont ReaawMxtonts Vs Agasiya Bai <& otheps Rdankhikniwi ©ond&another Pnsents Mr. Suhdir Kadiyop, Advocate for th®flppellants. Mrs, Meera Jaiswat, Advocate ^r the r^)on€lerrtN<|<1. ORDER (Oron (16th Juiw, 2011) I.M. Quddusl. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellants have filed this c^>eal uraler Section 173 of the Moter Vehicles Act, 1988 (for shorl- the Act. 1988') against the award dated 07.02.2007 passed by Ihe teamed 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C©) (for shorl- the Ctaims Tribunal') in Ctaim Casss No.53/2006 dismissing the claim application of the clainiants. 3. pacts of the case, in nytshell. are that on 19.5.2004 the dcceased wa< retuming from Viltage Mohari to his house alongwilh his brother-in-law Ramkhelawan on the motorcycle bearin9 registratien aumber MP18-€-6t90. When Ihey reached near crusher of one M.N. Sin9h, due to tight of headlight of an unknown dymper ooming from opposite sidc, said Ramkhitawan lost control over the motorcycle and fell on th< road as a result bolh of them have sustained injuries. The deeeased succun^ed to Itie injuries sustained by him in -riie said accident. The ctaimants, w^io are widow ^ parents of the deceasecl, had fited a claim petition befere itie Ctaims Tribunal seeking compensatton to the tune of Rs.4,61.000/- on the ground that they were dependent on the cteceased and due to his dealli they have suffered toss of income. 4. We have heard leamedl counsel for the parti®soaid peruaed tha recerd of the Claims Tribunal. ^ ^ ^ "v::^ !^'^ ^ 5. The Claims Tribunal vide impygr»davwrd dismissed Ihe cldum opplication on •riie ground that the owner-driver of motor cycJe"Jn'^uestion wwis not liaving valid and effective drivinj} licenceatliie tin»of aTCicksaitcmd thepefere 1*ie ckiimants are not entitled far any conipensatfon, 6, In the mstant case, in&irance policy was a 'Standard Motor Package Poli^ (comprehensive policy)and the deceased was or»of the occupants of vehicte- in-question. The Inajrance fte9utatoryandE>evelo(Mnen*Au1hori1yvjde its Circular dated 16.11.2009, in which eaclier circutars issued by the Tanff Advisory Comminee ctated 18.3.t978 A 2.6.1986 werectarified/addressedto all the fieneral Insyrwice Companies hcxve directed ^hat insurwice liabJNty m respect of occupant (s) capried »n a private car and pilJiwi ricler car*ried^n two-wheeter is covered undter the Standard Motor Package folicy* Thys, it ts evident that risk of the deceased was covered. 7. It is also admitted fact that oiwier himself was driving motorcycle and he had filed only teamers' licence which toooqaredon 17.12.2003 i.e. nttich before -riie date of accident i.e. 19.5.2004 and thus findings of the Ckxims Tribunal regarding breadi of insuronce pelicy ond ab«>)ving insureaw company from any Itability are proper. l-towever, we fait to undterstand as to how and on what grounds the Ckums Tribunal exonerated 1+ie owner of vehicle-in-questjon wrfien the Ckxims Tribund vts^if arrived at a findln9 ttet death of Itie deceased was -Ihe result of accklent in question. Tharefore we feel that matl-er requires reconsideration at theend of the Claims Tribunal. 8. In the result, we allow this oppeat Jn part, cet aside the impugnecl <B ward ond remit 1+ie mcrtter back to the Ctaims Tribunal for dedsiwi afreaN. Th®Ctaims Tribunal shall provide opporhinity to -ttie pdrties to adduce further cvidcnce, if any, cmd also allow the parties to aniend llw pteadings w fite documents or verify the documents already frled. 9. Tlie Registry te directed to trcawmit record of the claims Iribunal concemed without further detay. Tlie part-ies are directed to appe<w beforo the Claims Tribunal concemed on 2S.7.2011. 10. Certifiedjcopy as per rules. 1 ^ Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^ ^^ ^ ^ '^