''<€ - j^ V. ^ IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.) M.A. (QIJ^JO. .^.i2r OF 2007 (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs 3,94,000 /-) ,,,^^^ ^n^t APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. lA^' APPELLANT ^NON-APPLICANT N0.3) ^F- RESPONDENTS (APPLICANTjNO'i,) Branch Manager, ,- The New India Assurance Company Limited, Jagadalpur, Distt.-Bastar (CG). VERSUS : 1. Nand Kishor Gupta S/ O- Late Anturam Gupta, aged -55 years, <L NON^-APPLICANT N0.( :2 Sint<Ramkumari Gupta W/0- Nand 50 years. W/0- Nand Kishor Gupta, aged ((rNON|-APPLICANT N0 ^APPLICANT NOJ \^^^ i^ .^. ^.^°" . ^4-WB'-' ^^^^! ^^'-^' .,-^ 9' o •» B j3< Ku. Ruchi Gupta D/0- Nand Kishor Gupta, aged -25 years. ':4. Ku. Eafeta Gupta , D/O-Nand Kishor ^^ Gupta, aged - 23 years. All are R/o- Gurudvara Road, Indira Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt.- Bastar (C.G.) ;. 1 ^-- (NON-APPLICANT N0.^ 5, Shayam Sunder S/0 Kundan Das, R/0-Pathra-Gudapara, Jagdalpur,Distt.-Bastar (C.G.) ^^^ (NON-APPLICANTNO@ Pravirchandra Tiwari, R/0 - Near ^^ ^ ,,.... --...-- ,, ^ Homegaurad camp, Hatkachora, -^^_1_______ ' Jagdalpur, Dis -L^._.^^^O! Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar (C.G.) KIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (Ci ?TO. 912 OF 2007 APPBLLANT/ (NQn-auplicant No.31 RESPONDENTS Bi'aiicli Maiiagex", Tlie New India Assurance Company Limited. Versus Naod Kishor j Gupta and others. APPEAL UICDER SECTION 173 GF THE MOTOR VEHIC^BS ACT, 1988 Division BencSi:Hon'bIe Shri i.M. Ouddusi & Hoa'ble Shri G. Minliaiuddin, JJ. Preseats Shri Dashrafh. Gupta, counsel for the appeUant. i Shri Sanieer Qraon, couHselforresiX)udeut No.lto4. • : •; . • • 1 . • ' . :'- None forrespondentNo.5, tliougli sei'ved. Shri Subhash Yadav, counsel for respondent No.6. ORALORDER (Passed o^ ^th Day ofAugusit; 2011} Per i.M. Ouddusi, J. Tlils appeal has been ffled agamst tlie impugned award dated 03-03-2007 passed by the Motor Accident Clalms Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpiir (fbr short the Tribunal^ m Claim Case No. 379/2005 by the appeUant/Insurance Company, in so far as it relates to fasteulng of the liabillty to j^ay compGnsation to fhe respondents/clauiiants, upon the appeUai-it/Insuraiice ( ' . ' • , . ' ' ^ Coiupany. ,? 2. Brief 'facts of tlie case, accordiiig to clauiiants/respotidents ai'e fhat on 07-Q6-2005 at 5-00 a.in., deceased Rltesli KuBiar was gokig fhjiu Raipur to Jagdalpm' iii Tempo Trax beai'ing registi-atlon No. C.G. 17- T/0198 wlilch was beiiig di'lven by the respoiident No.5. 'l w ^- At National Hlgli Way No. 43, neai'viUage Munjala, tlie said vel'iicle met witli aii accident as a r-esult of wliich Ritesh Kmiiai' died on tlie spot. 3. The claliiiaiits beliig legal helrs of tlie deceased had filed a petitioh under Section 166 of tiie Motor Vehicles Act (for short <tl-ie Actnj befor-e flie Tribuiial claiming total aiTi.ouut ofconipeusation ofRs.62,00,000/- for fhe death of the deceased. 4. The leaiTied Tiibuiial on a close scTutiuy of tiie evidence led, material placed. and submissions made by the pailies has awai'ded a total aiTiouiit of Rs. 3,94,000/- along witii iiiterest @ 6% per aiinuni from the date of clalm petition, b. We have per-used the record offlie Triuuiial as weU as the unpugned awai-d. 6. LeaiTied counsel for tiie appellaiit has submltted that on tl-ie date of accident, ti.ie vehicle was not haviiig a valld permit fhougli it was registered as Passenger Caiiymg Vel-ucle aiid tlie msm'aiice policy was also made for passeuger caiTyiiig vehicle aiid 5 persons were also Iiisured, Besides compulsoiy personal accidQut of Rs.2,00,000/- to owner-cum-driver one employees was also msured. Thougli tlie Tribunal has fi-anied tlie issue regai'dmg violation of tl-ie coiidltions of tlie uism'aiice policy but fliiis aspect has not been considered wheflier tiie velucle In question was haviag a valid pemiit on the date of accident aiid whetl-iier tiiere was aiiy necessity of haviiig a permit aiid tf aiiy teniporaiy permit was tliere lii flie naiiie of the owner/lnsm'ed of U-ie veiilcle or was for aiiy otlier purpose. Further, it is appai'ent that tiie Clalins TMbmial has also uot coiisidered the police rccord includirig tiie FIR to ascer-taui tiie veracity. ^ 1;- 7. Having regard to tiie facts aiid cii'ci-mistaiices of tlie case, we ai'e of tiie opiiilon tliat tlie matter requii'es reconsideration at tlie end of flie Tribunal. Therefore, we allow thls appeal ki part, set aside the inipugaed award mid remit the matter back to tiie Tribuiial for- decision afresh. The question of quaiitmii shall also be reconsidered Ibllowing the Judgjjient of Suprenie Court ki Llie case o! SarlaL Verma. (Sfnt^ and afhers -us' Delhi Transpprt Cosyoratian and cino^ier reporled iii (2009) 6 SCC 121. 8. Needless to mention tiiat .tiie; pai'ties shall be provlded opportunity to amend the [pleadings, adduce furtlier evidence, file docunients or get tl-ie docuiiients vertfled etc. aiid fliereafter, awai'd shall be made afi-esh. 9. The records of the Tribuiial shaU be sent back witliout aiiy fmthef delay. 10. The parties ^shall appeai- before tlie Tribmial on 15-09-2011. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G.Minhajuddin Judge Kvr ^