m HON'BLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR IVI.A. No.- ^ i..-l^^;'5a[j APPELLANT BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, DISTT.- KORBA C.G. TRANSPORT NAGAR , Vrs. /•RESPONDENTS -;<'" ^:.r^ .s<y jy^ ^? ^ ^^'J>--' '<'^ <% 1. SRIMATI VIDHYAVATI KURRE AGE ^ABOUT 34 yrs., HUSBAND-LATE GANESH RAM KURRE h 1. ASHISH KURRE AGE 18 yrs. S/0 LATE ^GANESH RAM KURRE 3. YOGESHWAR KURRE AGE 15 yrs. S/0 ^GANESH RAM KURRE ^ 4. RAMESHWARI KURREY AGE 13 yrs. D/0 MLATE GANESH RAM KURREY &?. MANISH KURRE AGE 8 yrs. S/0 LATE ''''YGANESH RAM KURRE ALL RESIUENT OF- E/324, C.S.E.B. COLONY S.T.P.S. KORBA (EAST) TAH.- & DISTT.- KQRBA C.G. .6. KANAKRAM SAGAR AGE 40 yrs., S/0 -7CHAITRAM SAGAR, RESIDENT OF BHARANI (PARSADA), THANA CHAKARBHATHA, PRESENT ADDRiESS - CHINGRAJPARA, THANA- SARKANDA, D1STT.-BILASPUR C.G. .7. NAGENDRA PANDEY AGE 40 yrs. S/0 J.P. PANDEY, RESIDENT OF SONGANGA COLONY, SEEPAT ROAD , BILASPUR C.G. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOJOR VEHICLE ACT HIGH COVRT OF CHHATTISGARH. BJ.LASPVR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDU8I & Hoa'Me G. MIBFHAJUDDIN, JJ 1 APPBLLANT: RESPOMDBNTS: M.AfC). No. 201/2006 Branch Manager, Oriental Insuraace Compaay Limited Vs. Sint Vidhvavati Kurre aad others MISC. APPEAL imDER SBCTIOM 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1.988 Appearaace: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, coiiasel for the appeUant Mr. Ravish Vcnna, counsel for respondents 1 to 5. Mr. P. Tiwari, couasel for respoiident no.7 Per I.M. OUDDV9I. J. ORAL ORDER (28.06.2011) 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurauce Coiapany against the impugaed award dated 31.03.2006 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribimal, Korba (C.G) in Claim Case No.88/2004. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of claunants ~are that on 14.02.2003 deceased Ganeshram alongwifh Yashwaat Kumar Baghel was traveUng in between Blulai to Korba by driving Yaaaaha motorcycle bearing Rega. No.C.G. 12/ZN/0778. On the way at about 5.25 p.m., when the vehicle crossed Bilaspur near Central Virya Sangrahalay (on Sarkaada Ratanpur road), • one Dumper beaiing Regn.No.C.G.OA-lSSO which was being driven by respondeut no.6 Kanakram Sagar in rash and negligent manner dashed the inotorcycle, as a result of which, piBion rider Yashwant Kiuuar Bhagcl died on fhe spot and fhe driver of the inotorcycle Gaaesh Ram sustaiaed grievous injuries. Thc ,,.^"~s»g^ 1 •vsss-' Jyl ...''' s vs .^s-"' viBagers and I.T.I. students preseat at the place of accident brought him to CIMS Hospital Bilaspur where he died duriag fhe course of treatDient At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 46 yeara. He was worldng ia C.S.E.B. and wsis drawiag a inonthly salaiy of Rs.8311/-. The claunants beiug depcndeu.ts/legal rcpresentatives have ffled claua petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles for the award of total coinpensation of Rs.52,14,516/- on vaxious heads. The leamed Clauus Tribunal having segard to fhe facts situation has awardcd a total coinpensation ofRs.9,66,193/- with iaterest @ 6% per anniim which the claimants are entitled to receive fiom fhe non-appUcants jointly or severaUy. Leanied counsel for fhe .appeBaat has subinitted that fhe FIR was lodged agaiast an unlaiown vehicle but he baa not deaied the involveiacnt of the veMcle in question la the said accident We have found fhat fhe Tnbuual has aot considered fhe police rccords though the postniortein of fhc deceased was done and the police iavesti^ted the matter aad concluded fhe enqiury resiilting in filing ofchaige sheet u/s 173 of the Code of Crimmal Procedure Code but afler 8 inonths. Learaed counsel for the appeUant has also submitted fhat the issue regarding contnbutoiy neglj^ence has uot been fi-amed aad there is no findiag iu that respect Considering fhe facts aad circiunstanccs of fhe case, we are of tfae opinion fhat the Tribunal has not conducted proper enquiry as laid down ia Rule, 226 of fhe C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and Section 168 of fhe Motor Vcliicles Act, 1988. In fhe case of Rd/ Kvmar -»s- Afay Kumar und ctnwther decided on 18ul October, 2010 aad reported in jy (2010) AccUlent Ss Cnnipensatfon Cases 81S (SQ Hon'ble the Apex Court held fhat fhe clEiim petitfon should not be treated as a civU suit and it is the duty of the Tribuiial to conduct aa eitquiiy. v ff ^'1 '^r"^:. /;iF^^^ 6. Therefore, fhe inatter requires reconsideration at the cnd of the TribunaL Hence, we aUow this appeal iu part and remit the niatter back to the Tribunal for decision afi-esh ia the light offtie observations made hereinabove. 7. Needless to mention tfaat the parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadiags, adduce further cvidence, file documeuts or get the documente vcrified ete., aad thereafter fhe Tribuaal shall take fhe decision at the earliest regardaig contoributoiy negUgence eto. after sununoning thc police record and enquiiy report. The parties shaU appear before the Tribunal on 24& Julv, 2011. The records ofthe TnTiunal shaU be sent back fi>rthwith. s 8. The amount wluch has already been dcposited shaB remaia ia fixed deposit till a &eab decision is takea by the leamed Claitas Tribunal. 9. In the result, the appeal is atlowed ia part. No ordcr as to costs. ^ /• ^ I.M.Quddusi ; A Jud&e Judge