s INJ'HE mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BBLASPUR CHHATTISGARH MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - f f\%Q OF 2009 (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) c^' APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS A.- ».^ ^^f ./y^ %i-y> \/\f ..••"/^^ • ^! •^" ^' .A y <?t"^fe-" :»..^;;''? [VY^ 1. Dev Prasad Nirala, S/o Vishwanath Nirala, Caste - Satnami, aged about 55 years, 2. Ganga Bai Nirala, W/o Dev Prasad Nirala, Caste— Satiiami, aged about 48 years, Both R/o- Village - Hardi, Post - Hardi, Police Station & Tahsil - Sarangarh, District - Raigarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch - Itwari Bazar, Raigarh, Tahsil & District - Raigarh (C.G.) [Insurer of vehicle Motor Cycle bearing registration No. C.G. 13- F/1994] Krishna Kumar Nirala, S/o Dev Prasad Nirala, Caste - Satnami, aged about -26 years, R/o Village & Post - Hardi, Police Station & Tahsil - Sarangarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.). [Registered Owner ofvehide Motor Cycle bearing registration No. C.G. 13- F/1994 ] MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL_UNDE£SECTIQN173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 •''"?-.. b HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bte Shri I.M. Quddusi, & Hon^le Shri Prashant Kumar Miahra, JJ. M.A. (CtNo.1329 of 2009 APRELLANTS Smt. Parwati Satnami and others. Versus RESPONDENTS The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another. M.A. (ClNo.1330 of 2009 APPELLANTS Dev Prasad Nirala and another. Versus RESPONDENTS The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLE ACT. 1988 Appearance: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ratan Pusty, counsel for respondent No. 1. Following I. M. Quddusi, J. ORAL ORDER (OSW2/2011) oral order of the Court was passed by These are two appeals flled by the claimante against two separate impugned awards decided on 26/11/2008 of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) passed in Claim Case No. 79/2006 and 74/2006 respectively as the claim petitioris were dismissed by the Tribunal on fhe ground that the same were not maintainable as it was a case of hit and run. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The brief facte of the case are that on 27/04/2(X)6 deceased Mohan (in claim case No.79/06) was sitting in the motorcycle Bajaj Discover bearing registration No. C.G.13 F 1994 belonging to deceased Ramkumar Nirala (in claim case No.74/06) and they were going from village Hardi to ""T^ ':J.ST^, sv-^TK.-S'g^Si^'. ^^^. •s '~-.^;t.:-'- ^ ' ^. ^// "-<y" <• Barbhata. At about 12.30 in the aftemoon when they reached near Churela Nala an un-known truck coming from front side dashed the motorcycle due to which both the persons along with motorcycle fell down below the bridge of Nala and Mohan died on the spot and Ramkumar received grievous injuries. Ramkumar was admitted in Community Health Centre, Sarangarh for treatment and from there he was referred to Raigarh, on the way he died. Claimants in claim case No. 79/2006 have claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and in claim case No. 74/2006 have claimed compensation ofRs.31,22.000/-. 3. It is well settled law that the driver borrowed the two wheeler motorcycle from the owner with his consent and ttierefore he stepped into the shoes of the owner, 4. We have also perused the package policy in which the risk of the driver-cum-owner has been covered upto the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. Further there is circular of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) thatthe pillion-riderwould be treated as third party. 6. Therefore, holding that the claim petitions were not maintainable as it isa case of hit and run by the Tribunal is erroneous and therefore we allow these appeals in part, set-aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to decide claim petitions afresh in the light of the observation made aboveafter recording the evidence independently without being influenced by the above order. 7. It will be open for the parties to amend their pleadings or change the section under which the claim petition was filed and file the documents or get documents verified or adduce evidence etc. for which adequate opportunity shall be given to the parties by the claims Tribunal. 8. The Lower Court Record shall be sent back to the Tribunal without further delay. 9. A copy of this order be placed in the record of M.A.(C) No. 1329/2009 and M.A.(C) No. 1330/2009. No order as to costs. 10. Sd/- Sd/- I.M.Quddussi Judge prashantKumarMishra Judge ^ :u. :-?>' .At: ',SS^£^^SS!^tv^l^'^^''''srs^^s^""v