IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILAPSUR Misc. Anneal {C} No. 2-^3 ^ APPELLANT NE~^^%^ p;-^Bsiicn Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Corapany Limited, Shivmohan Bhawan, Pandri Raipur (C.G.) {Insurer} VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^y/^ 'X-^'/^'v ^yx/' <yt 1) 3) ^ Santrain S/o Paras Ram aged about 35 years, resident of Vill. Fingeshwa^, P.S. Fingeshwar Tahsil Rajim, dlstt. Raipur C.G. (Claitnants) Raghav Devangan S/o Dhannu urf Dhanwa Devangan, aged about 23 years, R/o Maulipara, Fingeshwar P.S. Fingeshwar Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Alok Kumar Sharma S/o Anil Kumar Sharma R/o Vill. Tikrapara, Fingeshwar, P.S. F'ingehsw^ar, Tahsil Rajim, distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Owner) MEMORANDUM O^APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE I. M. QUDDUSI & HOK'BLE G. MIKHAJUDDIN, JJ M.AIQNo. 269 OF 2011 3 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS: Bajaj AUiaiiz General lusurance Company Ud. Vs. Saatram aud two others M.AICI No. 268 OF 2011 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS: Bajaj AUiaaz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Rambai aad five ofhers MI8CBLLANBOU8 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEKICLBS ACT, 1988 Present: Mr. Bhaskar Fyasi, counsel for tlie appeUant/Insuraace Co. Mr. Kesav Dewaagan, counsel for respondent no.3 in M.A.C.No. 269/2011 & respondent no.6 iu M.A(C). 268/2011. Mrs. Shamula Singhai, coiinsel for respondents 1 to 4 ia M.A.C.268/2011. ORALORDER (21.11.2011) Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J, 1. This appeals have been filed by the Insuraace Conipany agaiast the impugned awards 09.11.2010 & 10.11.2010 passed ' separately by the Additioiial Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariaband, District Raipur (C.G) m Claim Case Nos.59/2010 & 35/2010 respectively in so far as it relates to fasfening llability upon fhe appeUaat to pay compensatioa to the claunaats. f€- 1..^ -t^ i ^ ii •fii 8 l:1' .4-' •..,y .y M.A.C. 269/2011 relates to Claim Case No.59/2010 (Santram Dhruv -vs- Raghcw Dewangcaz and others) aad M.A.C. No.268/2011 relates to Claim Case No.35/2010 (Smt. Rccmbcd and others -vs- Raghav Dewctngan and others). Siace bofh these appeals arise out the same accident inet with by vehicle beariag Regn.No.C.G.06/0540, fhey are beiag disposed of by this couunon order. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as -yer fhe version of the claimants are that on 21.03.2010 deceased Tulas Dhruv and iojured claimant Saateam Dhruv were traveling iu Mini Bus bearing Regn. No. C.G.06/0540. They were going fix>ni Mahasamund to Fiugeshwar. At about 10 a.ia., the said Bus wbich was beiug driven by non-applicant no.l Raghav Dewaagau in a rash aud negligent inaiuier overtumed near vUlage Shergaon, as a result of which, Tulas Dhruv sustaiaed grievous injuries and he was brought to the District Hospital, Mahasamund where he declared dead. Anofher occupant Santrara Dhruv, clatmaut/appeUaat in M.A.C.269/11 also sustamed serious iajuries on his face, light leg aad both the hauds. He was brougbt to the Maliasaraund District Hospital aad for better treatment, he was shifted to Agrasen Hospital, Samta. Colony, Raipur wherc he has undertaken treataient fi-om 22.03.2010 to 26.03.2010. It is aUeged fhat due to fhe iajuries sustained by hiin, he becaine penuanenfly disabted. The dependents/legal Iieirs of the deceased Tulas Dhruv have filed claim peti.tion_(Claun. Case No.35/2010) under section 166 & 140 ofthe Motor Vehicks Act, 1988 for the awari of total coinpensation of Rs.15,50,000/- fsxnaa non-apphcaats ^ 'T^ ^?F~ •^as» •y' ^ ;a8,. i».^ ""Q. ^7 on various heads whereas the injured clauaaat Saatram has filed clami petition (Claun Case No.59/2010) seekmg a total coinpensation ofRs.5 lakhs froin. the non-applicants. 3. The leamed Claims Tribunal has held that fhe vehicle in question was iavolved ia. the accident iu which Tulas Dhruv died whereas Saateam sustamed iajuries aad had undei^one treatinent and the claunaats of deceased Tulas Dhruv are entitled to receive a total coinpensation of Rs.4,28,000/ whereas tiie uijured clamiaat Santram is entifled to get compensation ofRs.64,000/- fcom the non-applicaats joiafly or severaUy. 4. Leamed counsel for ttie appeUaiit subinits that there was no permit issued by the RTO at the time of accident, fherefore, there was breach ofconditions ofthe Insurance Pollcy. 5. We have heard learued counsel for the parties aad have also gone fhrough the records 6. On perusal of ftie record, we have found that fhe vehicle was plyiag without pennit. Leamed Tribunal has given its fiading iu favour of the owner m.entioning that as the owner had appUed for pemiit before the date of accident and had deposited the prescribed fee in. advance for issuaace of the permit, therefore, he caniiot be held responsible. But to our view, fhere was no proper permit because the vehicle was being plied oiily subject to issuance of prospective permit and fherefore, if the permit was not issued, the owner had no occasion to ply ftie vehicle ui absence of the permit. However, if any fee was paid iu advance for gettiag the pennit, it was totaUy fhe risk of the owner and ftierefore there was breach of conditions of fhe uisuraiice poU.cy. Hence we are of fhe opinion <<s";;^. 4 ^ 7. that fhe iasurance coinpany canaot be held Uable to pay coinpensation and on fhis ground, fhe iasurance corupany is Uable to be and is hereby exonerated. However, it witl be opcn for the claunaats to realise the amouut of coiapeusation firom the owner and driverjoiatly or severaUy. In the result, both fhe appeals are allowcd. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge A Rao T