IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(QNo. l/^^ /2009 APPELLANT : [NON-APPLICANT N0.3] ^%^ .^•^-^' .^ ^^ ..-K RESPQNDENT [APPLICANTS[ The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through: Divisional Manager, Division Office N0. 1 the new India Insurance Co., Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Nirmala Bai Wd/o. Khubchand Dhruw, Aged about 25 years, 2. Sonu S/o Late Khubchand Dhruw, Aged 4 years, 3. Ku. Durga D/o Late Khubchand Dhruw, aged about 2 years, 4. Manish S/o Late Khubchand Dhruw, Aged 1 year, 5. Kejau S/o. Nijam, Aged about 7Q years, 6. Puniya W/o. Kejau, Aged 65 years Respondent no. 2, 3, 4 are minor through guardian mother NIrmal Bai Wd/o Late Khubchand Dhruw, aged about 25 years, All R/o of Village - Akoli, P.S. Dharsiwa, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) "-F' Non-Avplicant No. Non-Affplicant No. 2 4 7. Pradeep Kumar S/o Devdas Raulkar, R/o J.P. Nagar, Kamp Shardapara, WArd no. 22, Behind Govt. School, Bhilai, P.S. Chhawni, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) (Driver of Truck No. C.G. 04/ZC- 5408^ 8. Smt. Kulwant Kaur W/o Dalbir Singh, R/o H.T.C. Hathkhoj, Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) (Owner of Truck No. C.G. 04/ZC- 5408; APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,1988 ,<0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice PrashantKumarJVUshra Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.1158 of 2009 Appellant versus Respondents The New India Assurance Company Limited Nirmala Bai and others Present: Shri A.K.Athatey, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.C.Verma, counsel for respondents No.1 to 6. Shri P.R.Patankar, counsel for respondents No.7 and 8. Misceltaneous Appeal und^r Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23rd February, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company challenging the award dated 26-3-2009 passed by the 9th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur in Claim Case No.94/2008. 3. Brief facts of the case, according to the claimants, in short, are that on the date of accident, i.e., 22-5-2008, at about 8 P.M., when the deceased Khubchand Dhruw was riding a bicycle near Basti Chowk in Village Siltara, a truck bearing registration No.CG 04 ZC 5408, which was being driven by non-claimant Pradeep Kumar rashly and negligently, dashed him. As a result of the grievous injuries sustained in the accident, Khubchand Dhruw died. The ^^•^^ ^^ ~^%. /y^.:..-...\ i f .....---^^ i I m-^'&S^ 8 % '-5."-1;'"' j i ^ incident was reported to the Police Station Dharsewa, District Raipur. The claimants, i.e., wife, son, daughter, son, father and mother of the deceased preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act')claiming compensation of Rs.9,60,000/-. 4 . The Claims Tribunal awarded compensationof Rs.4,36,000/- in favour of the claimants holding liability to pay the same on the non-claimants jointly or severally. 5. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company on the ground that the driving licence was issued to the driver of the truck in question when he was minor, but no evidence has been led by the insurance company to prove the same. Reliance of the insurance company is based only on the xerox copy of the computerized card driving licence. 6. In fact, the driving licence was shown to be issued on 12-7- 1994 and in the said licence, the date of birth of the driver Pradeep Kumar has been mentioned as 16-9-1978, but to drive heavy goods vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle he was authorized as in the column of 'Add New/Renewal On' the date mentioned is 13-9- 2006, therefore, if authorization to drive heavy goods vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle was made on 13-9-2006 then the plea that the driving licence was issued when the driver was minor would not be sustainable as the new authorization was made when the driver had become major. Anyhow, since under Section 168 of the Act it has been provided that the Claims Tribunal shall hold an ^ ^^ •^ ^ '^•... ^ enquiry into the facts and under Rule 226 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 it is the duty of the Claims Tribunal to conduct an enquiry, it will be appropriate for the Claims Tribunal to comply the aforesaid provisions and hold an enquiry to find out the truth by summoning the concerned Regional Transport Authority along with the relevant record. 7. In view of the above, since the appellant/insurance company has not challenged the amount of compensation and the point is limited to the extent whether the liability to pay compensation goes upon the insurance company or the owner of the truck, it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the Claims Tribunal for deciding the question of liability only by summoning the concerned Regional Transport Authority along with the relevant record. However, since the owner of the truck had not come before the Claims Tribunal, we are of the opinion that it will be appropriate to provide her opportunity to participate in the, proceedings. 8. Therefore, we allow the miscellaneous appeal in part and set aside the only part of the impugned award by which the insurance company has been held liable to pay the compensation which shail be decided by the Claims Tribunal after conducting an enquiry as already discussed above. The matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal. The record of the Claims Tribunal shall be sent back without delay. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 5th April, 2011 . There shall be no order as to costs. Gopal Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge