IN THEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Qfc^ MA.(C) No. ..*:.r.. OF 2008 (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs.3.17.475/-) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1?3 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. APPELANT (NON- APPLICANT /N0.5) RESPONDENT8 fAPPLICAN'I,) ^ ^ , ,., :1. ^-_p^ y ^f^^^- ^fi^' k..*^' ( NON-APPLICANT :2, . No:l) -S^ United India Insurance Company Umited,Through: It Divisional Manager, Divisional- Office, Krishna Complex, Ist Floor, Kuchery Chowk, Raipur (CG) VERSUS Narendr^ Kuinar Sah|»^ S/0- Bisheshwar Sahu, aged-32 years, occupation-Electrician, R/0-village-Dunda, Post- Sejbahar, P.S. Tikrapara,Raipur, Distt.-Raipur (CG) Mukesh KumarS/0- Rupauram, aged-25years, occupation-ti-uck driver, R/0- villge-Riva, P.S.-Aarang, Distt.- Raipur(CG). (NON-APPLICANTN :3. ).2) s- M/S Hora Transport ompany Private Limited, Through: Managing Director Harminder Singh Hora S/0- Late Amar Singh Hora,R/0- Sai Nagar, Raipur (CG). ^s ^^y^,^^?'>fis^^'r^!se»<M^'^*ssii^;e^^a%Ai^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.880 of 2008 Appellant United India Insurance Company Limited versus Respondents Narendra Kumar Sahu and others Present: Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Shri Lokesh Singh, Advocate appears on behalfofShri A.L.Singroul, counsel for respondent No.1. No one appears for respondents No.2 and 3 though served. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17th September, 2010) Per I.M. Quddusi. J.: Learned counsel appearing for the parties are heard finally. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against the impugned award dated 11-3-2008 passed by the Xllth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur (henceforth 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 158/2006 awarding Rs.3,17,475/- to the claimanVinjured along with 7.5% interest. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 15-2-2006 at about1 P.M., respondent No.l/claimant was going from Village Dunda to Mathpuraina on his motor cycle bearing registration No.CG 04/CH- 8565. On the way, near Santoshi Nagar Ring Road, respondent .^' f ^ !r ^ ^1 ^l^-^y^ ^^^^^ No.2 came from Pachpedi Naka side by driving truck bearing registration No.CG 04-ZC-0855 rashly and negligently and dashed the motor cycle of the claimant on the front side, as a result of which, the claimant received serious injuries. The claimant filed an application before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- against the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3. Respondents No.2 and 3, in theirjoint written statement, denied the claim of respondent No.1 and stated that the driver/respondent No.2 was not negligent in driving the truck and he had valid and effective driving licence, therefore, if any liability for compensation arises, insurer will be liable for the same. The appellant/insurance company, in its written statement, denied the claim of respondent No.1 andstated that the truck was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The driver/respondent No.2 had no valid and effective driving licence and had no permit and fitness certificate to drive the truck for commercial purpose. Thus, the truck was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was further submitted that the alleged accident was the result of collision between the motor cycle and the truck, therefore, the insured and the insurer of the motor cycle were necessary party. It was also submitted that the amount of compensation claimed was imaginary and the claimant was also responsible for the accident. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed issues and after trial held that respondent No.l/claimant was 25% negligent and respondent No.2/driver of the ,,^?^ .^^^•^ i 1 ^^ J \^-^/ ;~,-^^' / f^ truck was 75% negligent and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.3,17,4757- with interest thereon from 18-1-2007 till realization in favour of respondent No.l/claimant and against the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3 jointly and severally. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. The claimant produced a certificate (Ex.P-90) issued by Dr. G.S.Bachu, who is Orthopaedic Surgeon, having practitioner's registration No.3052, regarding permanent disability of the claimant. Dr. G.S.Bachu was examined as claimant's witness before the Claims Tribunal. Dr.Bachu stated that he had issued the certificate (Ex. P-90) in private capacity on the basis of the x-ray done on 5-1-2007, but in his statement it was mentioned that the injured/claimant came to him only on 6-1-2007. The date of accident is 15-2-2006. The treating doctor of the claimant was not produced and examined as a witness before the Claims Tribunal. The injury report was also not proved. It cannot be said that there is any link of the permanent disability of the claimant with the alleged injuries received on his person due to the accident jnquestion. 6. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that all the above aspects have not been considered by the Claims Tribunal and, therefore, ^ie matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Claims Tribunal. Inview of the above, we allow the miscellaneous appeal, set aside the impugned award and remand the matter to the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal shall restore the claim petition to its original number, -^r provide proper opportunity to the parties to adduce further eVictence and decide the matter afresh. For that purpose, the parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 19th October,2010. It is directed that the amount, which is in deposit, shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the appellanVinsurance company, and if already disbursed, the same shall be subject to the decision of the claim petition. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal