WRITPETITION ( 227) N0. 5562 OF 2011 Cholamandalam MS Genera! Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Off at Devendra Nagar Road, Raip'^r (C.G.). PETITIONER (INSURER) CG-15-A-1315 RESPONDENT/ CLAIMANT VERSUS 1. 2. Sanas @ Sanad Ram Painkara, S/o Gendram aged about 35 years Sonamani @ Sonmati, W/o Sanad Ram Painkara, aged about 30 years, both Caste Kanvar, R/o Vil: Muhli, PS & Tah Bhaiyathan, Dist. Sarguja (CG). Mangal Ram, S/o Kedar, Caste- Panika, aged 58 years R/o Kedarpur Ambikapur, PS & Tah: Ambikapur (C.G.). Sushil Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Atma Ram Agrawal, age 45 years, R/o Brahm Road, Ambikapur, PS &Tah: Ambikapur (C.G.). Poonam Chand Agrawal, ovvnc'r, 407 mini truck, R/o Bhaiyathan, PS & Tah-Bhaiyathan, Dist.: Sarguja (CG). Uniteci India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office-Brahma Road, Ambikapur (C.G.). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Devershi Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents not noticed. DRIVER OF CG-IS^A- 3 1315 OWNEROF CG-15-A-1315 4. OWNEROFCG..15-A-2097 5. INSURRER OF CG-15-A- 6. 2. ORDER (Passedon 19/09/2011) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 17/8/2011 passed by Firsf Additional Motor Accident Claims, Tribunal, Surajpur District Surguja (C.G). (in short 'Claims Tribunal') in M.J.C. No. 70/11 whereby petition filed by petitioner for review of the order passed in claim case No. 59/2010 dated 7/3/2011 has been dismissed. Shri Devershi Thakur.Advocate for the petitioner is heard. Ei'"'- .^f^w^&t^.^'- •.s--' 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present petition, respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 are driver and owner of vehicle has not filed copy of Insurance Policy. By filing written statement, present petitioner has specifically denied the insurance contract with owner & driver relating to vehicle but without any document of Insurance Company, Claims Tribunal has awarded the claim and has directed to petitioner to pay amount of award durin; aforesaid period although, it was not possible to ascertain who was the Insurance Company at relevant time but by investigating matter through investigator, they obtained report and document which clearly reveals that at the time of accident vehicle in dispute was insured with IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company. After knowing the facts, present petitioner has applied for review which has been dismissed by Claims Tribunal and thereby committed an illegality. 4. Claim petition, reply of present petitioner, award, other documents and order impugned perused. 5. In case of denial of contract of insurance, virtually, Claims Tribunal was under obligation to provide opportunity to the parties to prove contract by necessary document and when facts came into knowledge of the petitioner that he was not Insurance Company at the time of accident then Claims Tribunal was under obligation to consider in review petition but instead of considering such new facts Claims Tribunal has rejected petition thereby committed an illegality and ^ to fail in exercise jurisdiction vested on it. ^ Consequently, petition is allowed. Order impugned is hereby quashed. Case is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal. Claims Tribunal shall decide the review petition afresh on merits considering new facts after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. No order as to costs. Petitioner shall remain present -J7 ^' 6. before the Claims Tribunal on 19/10/2011 for further proceedinj of the case. Interim applications stand disposed of. ; Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^c^