^] IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL(C) N0. i\3 QF BNsion Bgj}cb •axou APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.1988 APPEAL VALUEb AT RS. 3.^8.000/- (RUPEES THREE LACS FORT/ EieHT THOUSAN& ONLY Appellant ^on-Applicant ^' b pRNe^.. prsssnta'-i':'.- /""-° Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Bilaspur Branch, Taha Complex, VyaparVihar Road, Bilaspur ............-"•"•""•""Versus t)ated...^.^.^r^-- Respondents A. (a). Smt. Fag Bai, Wd/o Late 7 Applicants/Claimants ^ Vishram Sonwani, aged 38years (b) Virendra Sonwani, S/o Late ^ Vishram Sonwani, aged ZOyears ^ Respondent Non-applicant no. l (c) /Ku. Sarita, b/o Late Vishram Sonwani, aged 18 years (All R/o Village Pichketta, P.S. Bhanupratappur, North Bastar, Kanker) /Shiv Kumar, S/o Kunwar ^ Yadav, aged 36 years, R/o Village ^ Mulla, P.S. Bhanupratappur, Distt. North Bastar, Kanker brjyer Respondent fe') ^./5mt. (Sunja Netam, W/o LateRati Non-applicant no. 2 Netam, R/o Sanjay Para, Tahsil ^ .0 . Bhanupratappur, Distt. North Bastar Kanker. Owner HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ; BILASPUR Appellant Respondents Appellant Respondents Versus M.^A^(ClJio^46 of 2011 National Insurance Company Limited Smt. Fag Bai- & others M. A^(C) No. 219 ofSSOll National Insurance Company Limited Versus Appellant Respondents Srat. Fag Bai & others And M. A. (C) No. 291 of 2011 National 'Insurance Company Liraited Versus Smt. Ramo Bai & others DB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice I. M. Quddusi Sc, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Minhajuddin Shri Qamrul Aziz and Shri G.V. K. Rao, Advocates for the appellant/Insurance Company. Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the respondents/Driver and Owner. Shri D. N. Prajapati, Advocate for the claimants in M.A.(C) No.291/2011. ORDER(Qral) (Passed on this 23rd November, 2011) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. The aforementioned three appeals ( M.A.(C) Nos. 46, 219 and 291 of 2011 ) are being decided by this common order as they arise froin the one and the same accident which occurred on 8.6.2009 at about 1.00 p.m. (13.00 hours) as the Truck, bearing registration No. C.G. 04- 6337, which was being driven by Shiv Kumar, in a rash and negligent manner, turned turtle. <* Brief facts of the case are that on 8.6.2009 at about 1.00 p.m. deceased persons Ku. Mamta Sonwani, Vishram Sonwani (sitting in the vehicle as Conductor) and Sop Singh Kureti (sitting in the vehicle as Hamali/Cooli) were going to Pankhajur along with other persons, carrying luggage, by Truck No. C.G. 04-6337, which was being driven by the driver/Non-applicant No.l (Shiv Kumar), in a rash and negligent manner, turned turtle, resulting in the accident. The claimants/dependents of deceased Ku. Mamta Sonwani filed Claim Case No. 05/2010 UHder Section 166 8s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 6,66,000/-, wherein learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District - North Bastar Kanker by the impugned award dated 17.08.2010 has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,48,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, fastening liability upon the non-applicants, jointly and severally. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has &led the M.A.(C) No. 46/2011. The claimants/dependents of deceased Vishrain Sonwani filed Claim Case No. 06/2010 under Section 166 8s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 5,22,000/-, wherein learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District - North Bastar Kanker by the impugned award dated 17.08.2010 has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,48,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per 'annum, fastening liability upon the non-applicants, jointly and severally. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has flled the M.A. (C)No.219/2011. The claimants/dependents of deceased Sop Singh Kureti filed Claitn Case No. 22/2010 under Section 166 & 140 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, ^".A '"^ 1 ff^\ •^ ^ / '^?? '<ti. ,^ 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 10,60,OOO/-, wherein learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District - North Bastar Kanker by the impugned award dated 17.08.2010 has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,77,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, fastening liability upon the non-applicants, jointly and severally. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has filed the M.A.(C) No.291/2011. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record. ^ 7. It is evident that since all the above three claim petitions arise out of the one and the same incident, involving one offending vehicle i.e. Truck No. C.G. 04 -6337, whose driver (Shiv Kumar), owner ( Smt. Gunja Netam) and insurer (National Insurance Company) were the non-applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 in all the three cases, learned Claims Tribunal tried thera together. 8. Further, on the basis of the evidence on record, learned Claims Tribunal has held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident however there was violation of other conditions of the insurance policy as it has come in the evidence that more persons -than the persons permitted under the policy were traveling in the Truck at the relevant time of accident because instead of goods a Barat was being carried in the Truck. On perusal of the insurance policy it is evident that it was a Goods Carrying Commerciar Vehicle (Open) Policy B Package . The premium for six persons has been obtained wherein one driver, one cleaner and conductor and four coolies are covered in case of death/injury in the motor accident. y 9. In view of the above we are of the opinion that learned Tribunal should have conducted proper enquiry, as laid down in Rule 226 of the C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to ascertain the truth. Learned Tribunal has not specifically mentioned as to which of the other conditions of the insurance policy have been violated. 10. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed in part, tbe irapugned awards dated 17.8.2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for decision afresh in view of the observations made herein above. 11. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, Hle documents or get the documents veri&ed etc., and thereafter decision shall be taken afresh, as eariy as possible, preferably within a period of sb; months. 12. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 16th February, 2012. 13. The LCR shall be sent back without further delay. ^€ ^y: ^'..^ ^' 6.<^ KVRao