^ HIGHCOURTOFCTHA1"^ISGARHATBILASPUR Misc.^DDeal(C^No.^^36f2008 Abbellant Resbondents; 1%^, €• IT'U; Baja^Alljanz ^Oenerai Insurance Qompany t.imited, Brancli Ofyjce Kanput' <UR)^Reg|stere€offiGe: GE Blaza^^^ ^ Yerawad^Ptine(^5411006 Nfersus 1. Bhagat Ram @ h|rishna^^^^^^l^ S/o Vish^nath Prasad, aged alwut 92 years,} cast&^^^ K^ Qccupation.AgricultuFe-Labour. 2. Mangal S/o Bha|gat Ram @ Krishoa Kumar, a^ed about^ 10 years, Mjnorrepresentedthrough naturalKguaKlian jfattier Bhag^t Ram @ KrishnaKiimar, 3. ShambMu S/o BHagat Ram @ Krishna Kumar, aged about 07 "^ years, Minor represented ttirough natural guardian jfether Bhagat Ram @ Krishria Kumar; All permanent resicterrf of^^ V^ AsanhaF, Post Asanhar, District Sonbhadra (UP) Rresent Busjness- village Gorgi, TaMsil Pratappur, DistriGtSurguja(C<3).j (Claimants). j 4. RemTjatan S/o lulkar, aged about 30 years, R/o village Chamki, Thana Babhani, District Sonbhadra(UP)-Driver. 5; Shri Kanti Ram^S/p Ramsundar, agedaboyt4^years,^1^^ Ohamki, ^ana, Babhani, District Sonbhadra(tJP)-Owner; l B -T^ ^. e APPEALUNl3ERSECflONl73QFWEMOTOiRVEHIGLESACT,19 fSB: Hori'bleMr.N-K.^arv^l.J.l^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Present : Shri SS Raiputwith ShriAharit XumarBaipal, Advoca^ 'appeJlant.,::1'^'':,:''/^'^';'^ .';: 1::;.. ': ShriAShok^KumarShuklawithShriShreyasThakur, AdvocatesfQrrespondentNo.4&5.{ 1. 2. 3. 4. ^ORAL^ORD:ER;:-'..'^.-.''i-'.^ (Passedori 19th dayofAprH, 201(0^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Withtheconsentoftheparties.thematteilisheardfinally. Feeling aggrieved ahd dissatisfied wijth the award dated 16.07.2008, passedA)ytheAddittonalMotQrAccidentsClaJms Tribunal (FTC), Pra^ppur, District Surguja (for shprt 'the 4^'-/-..;'-/::1-;'::.'';^';:''- •^'•- Tribunal') inclaimcaseNo. 75/2007, wh^rebyan^w^ the appljcation preferr^ bytheclalmantsj under Section 140 of MV ^(^ has beeri aljov^d^^^^^^^^f^ appellahf/jnsurahce cornpany, the insfant appeal has been preferred.::\,^'\!:'.''1.::^;1 . ',...: The facts in brief are^s under: On 26.09.2007, Rajkumari (since deceased) met with an accident witl-i Jeep bearing regJstrationiNo. USM-8856 and succumbedtothetnjuriessystainedinthesajdaccident. The reSpondent No. 1 t6 3 preferred N claim pefitibn under Section166ofMyActclaimingconfipensationRs.7,64,5QO/-f6r the death of deceased in the said accident. Also filed an application under Secrtion 140 bf the MV^^i^^ 50,000/-asndfayltcompensation. The appellant filed its replyand denjed the exisfence of policy. Itwasfurtherstatedinthewrittenstatementthatsaidpolicywas forgedandfabricated. -li-i'i' ^%W?rf: 1:!1 7. Thetrial court without holding any enquiryi into thematter, held the appellant responsible for payment ofjcompensatjon to the cjaimantbased on copyofpQlicyfiledbytheclaimantsobtained from the criminal couFt despite the objection raised by the 'l,;appellant.:.-..'l/'..- •,';:1, :.,- .'.-:'.-,;•,-..1" ,!.;11 - 1 •,.. ^:';. .1.1' . 8. Shri Rajput, learned cbunsel appearing foff the appeliarrt would contend that the award passed under Section 140 is an award, the trial court is duty bound to pass thejaward after holding summar^ enquiry.As the award has bjeen passed without holding any enquiry and without taking into consideration the objections raised by the appellant, the award being erroneous deserves to be set aside. 9. On the other hand; Shri Shukla, learned (Xtunsel app^^ respondent No, 2 & 3 would eontend that the award passed by the Tribunal is based pn appreciation of material ancl deserves tobeupheld. T 10. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the orderimpugned and material placed beforethiscourt, 11. A bare perusal of copy of written statement filed by the appellant (AnnexureA/3) wouldreyealthattheappellantinpara 5 to 7 of its written statement had categbrically pleaded that cover note filed in the case is forged and fabriGated. 12. Undisputedly, the Tribuna! has not consjdered the objections raised by (he appellant regarding existence of policy c^ coverjng risk of offending vehicle at the time of accident while passingtheawardimpugnedwhichisnotsustajnableinlayy. \^ Sahu 13. In view of above/ in the lcohsidered opinion of^^^ ^ award deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back for (teeision afresh. It is di cted that the trra court shall pass the award after consjdering the objectjons raisedbytheappellanttnitswrittenstatem^ntandafterholdjng summary enquiry therefor in accordance yvith law on its own merits. j 14. It is further made clear that this court has j not expressed any opiniononthemeritsofthematter.NoorderjastoCbsts. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ;^; ^y.^if^^