^^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)No.- ^\\ /2011 1?^ S^^l 0'3 V K'^i ^ '^y s.s-?^^ APPELLANT THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BRANCH OFFICE KAMTI LINE RAJNANDGAON. Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT:- ^ ^ ^ ^,;^^.;--^^A:, ^^^— ,':r^;-^iT""^' Da^---<Z^\-c>1 RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS:- 1. SMT. VEN BAI W/0 SHRI S.S. SRINATH, AGE 39 YEARS, RESIDENT- VILLAGE KAWARDHA PANDARJYA, THANA KAWARDHA, TEHSIL KAWARDHA, C.G. 2. SANTOSH KUMAR S/0 SHRI DUKHWA RAM, AQE 25 YEARS, RESIDENT- VILLAG& KAWARDHA THANA KAWARDHA DISTRICT- KAWARDHA C.G. 3. GANESH PRASAD TIWARI S/0 SHRI RAM KUMAR TIWARI, AGE 35 YEARS, RESIDENT- VILLAGE KAWARDHA THANA KAWARDHA C.G. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEmCLE ACT 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Appellant Respondents Appellant Respondents Appellant Respondents Appellant Respondents Versus M.A. (0 No. 443 of 2011 The Oriental Insurance Company Smt. Jyoti Padmwar & others M. A. (C) No. 444 of2011 The Oriental Insurance Company Versus Srat. Ven Bai & others M. A. (Cl No. 450 of 2011 The Oriental Insurance Company Versus . Smt. Sapna Singh & others M. A. (C) No. 451 of 2011 The Oriental Insurance Company Versus Srnt. Shanta Bai 8s others M. A. (C) No. 452 of2011 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Company Versus Respondents Ku. Kusura Lata & others And M. A. (Ci No. 453 of2011 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Company Versus Respondents Sint. Sapna Singh & others DB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Minhajuddin QA <>. Shri Sudhir Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company. Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate for the resporidents No. 6 8s 7/Driver and Owner. Shri Samir Singh, Advocate for the c.laimants. O RD ERIQrali (Passed on this 19th day of Sept.ember, 2011) Perl. M. Quddusi.J. 1. The aforementioned six appeals ( M.A.(C) Nos. 443, 444, 450, 451, 452 ancl 453 of 2011 ) are being decided by this common order as ali / ^-^"SS^ . \ ^ ^%. ^&:>' ,!<>".^ •M^ ESS^ 3. ^ these appeals have arisen from the common award dated 13.10.2010, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Dhamtari in Claim Case Nos. 46/2010 (Smt. Sapna Singh 85 others) 47/2010 ( Ku. Kusumlata), 48/2010 (Smt. Sapna Singh), 49/2010 (Smt. Ben Bai), 50/2010 (Smt. Jyoti Padmvar 85 others) and 51/2010 (Smt. Shanta Bai Vs. Santosh Kumar 8s others). Brief facts, in nutshell are that on 20.1.2008 deceased Charanjeet Singh and Mukesh Singh as well as injured Kusumlata, Sapna Singh, Ben Bai and Shanta Bai were going to Gagrel Dam for Devi Darshan and Picnic by Tata Sumo, bearing registration No. C.G. 06-A/1938. On the way, near village Birjhan, due to rash and negligent driving by the non-applicant No. 1 (Santosh Kumar) the vehicle got out of control and collided with an unknown Truck, which was coming from the opposite side. As a result of this accident Tata Sumo turned turtle and the unknown Truck fled from the scene. The Claim Case No. 46/10 was filed for death of Charan Jeet Singh for award of Rs. 11,50,000/-, Claim Case No. 47/2010 was filed by the injured Kusumlata for award of Rs. 4,00,000/-, Claim Case No. 48/2010 was filed by injured Sapna Singh for award ofRs. 4,00,000/, Claim Case No. 49/2010 was filed by injured Ben Bai for award of Rs. 4,00,000/-, Claim Case No. 50/2010 was ffled for death of Mukesh Singh for award of Rs. 11,50,OOO/- and Claim Case No. 51/2010 was filed by injured Shanta Bai for award ofRs. 4,00,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal havimg regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded a sum of Rs. 4,24,210/-, Rs. 1,05,099/-, Rs. 28,411/-, Rs. 17,831/-, Rs. 4,21,576/- and Rs. 22,595/-, respectively, in Claim Case Nos. 46, 47,48,49,50 and 51of2010. ^\\ 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record and found that though a copy of the drivinj licence of the driver of the offending vehicle is available on record but the same was issued for a period of 20 years. Since the offending vehicle was a passenger carrying vehicle, therefore, the Tribunal should have considered the provisions of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that for transport vehicle the licence is issued only for three years and for other purpose it is issued for 20 years or till the person Attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier. 6. The Insurance Company has not produced any evidence to show that the driving licence was for driving the private light motor vehicle. However, learned counsel for the respondents have produced a copy of the licnece which shows that the licence, authorizing to drive light transport vehicle was issued to driver Santosh Kumar on 3.8.2006 and was renewed on 30.1.2010 and valid up to 25.5.2013 but it could not be taken into consideration as it was not filed before the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the better course would be to remit the matter back for the purpose to find out the real facts. 7. Further, learned counsel for the appellants has also raised a contention that the insurance was only for third party liability and the persons who died or were injured were occupants of the vehicle. In this regard we have perused the insurance policy which is the Liability Only Policy for Zone B . Therefore, the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, 1988 are liable to be perused by the Tribunal, more particularly sub-clause (ii of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147. As such, the Tribunal should decide the issue afresh, ~.^y determining the facts in the light of the observations made herein above and the additional issues may also be framed, if necessaiy. 8. Needless to say that the quantum part shall also be considered vis-a-vis Tribunal should take into consideration the seating capacity of the offending vehicle as the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the persons beyond the seating capacity because according to learned counsel appearing for the appellant the applications filed under Section 170 of the Act, 1988 also remain pending and the same were-not considered till the impugned award was passed. 9. In view of the foregoing, we allow these sbc appeals in part, set aside the impugned award dated 13.10.2010 and remit back the matter to the Clainis Tribunal to consider and decide afrcsh in the light of the observations made herein above. No order as to costs. 10. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and niay file further docuraents and get the documents verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal on merits. 11. Further, needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall make an endeavor to decide the Claim Petitions afresh, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. 12. Parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 3.11 .2011. 13. The amount, if any, deposited With the Tribunal shall remain in fb<ed deposit scheme till fresh decision is taken by the Tribunal. 14. The lower Courts record shall be sent back forthwith. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Thakur Sd/- G.Minhajuddin Judge