n IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAT33SGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal {C} N0 f 1(4- /2008 APPELLANT ft. ^,3 'z. 1 s'k'-\ Z^^pP * y^Bte-- .-ttS. 'f't >^-1 ^ ^-i-'^ as^~" Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ^y' Company Limited, Through Manager, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) (INSURER) VERSUS RESPONDENTS . 1) Akhilesh Kumar Shrivas S/o Late y" Laxman Prasad Shrivas, aged about 37 years, R/o Imlibhata, Bandhwa Para, Sarkanda, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) (CLAIMANT) 2) Deepak Das Manikpuri S/o Amoldas •" Manikpuri, R/o Bandhwa Para, Thana Sarkanda, Tahsil 8s District Bilaspur (C.G.) (DRIVER) 3) Umashankar Sahu S/o Ramkisuhun Sahu, R/o Bandhwa Para, Near New Pump House, Imlibhatha, Bilaspur Tahsil 8s District Bilaspur (C.G.) (OWNER) ^sf"^" MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994 ^. u ff 1 N 1 !\.^ ^ HiOi AT M.A.(c5No.11140F \/a v ^ Aiiianz Generai insurance Co. Raipur (CG) Akhiiesh Kumar Shrivas and others Ltd. fresent: Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput with Mr. Anant Bajpai, counsel for the appeilanVinsurance company. iVlr. Goutam Khetrapat with Mr. AC Sahu,counse! for respondent No.2/driver. G, IVlinhaluddin. J fiRnp" 'rt-ait ^•^B'^.^S.'tar^ ^WE^J^ fssff^ ,a .:• ^s. .&. ^ 1^» ^y^jus'&^ "^yi This has been filed by the company under Section 173 of the Motor Act, 1988 the award daied 3'" Juty, 2008 paased by the 9"' Additional Motor Accldent Cialms Tribuna!'(FTC), Bilaspur, (in short "the Tribunal") in C!aim Case i'lo. 3^/uG, llabiiity to pay the on the yppeiianuinsurance companyjointly and aiong with driver and owner. 02. Brief of the case are that on 27.7.2006 whiie th< appiicanuciaimant ARhiiesh Kumar was returning from Nehru Naaar on ins motorcycle, was being driven by respondent No.2, at that isms sn tront of Chhattisgarh Bhavan, Bifaspur, one vehicle {he saiu motorcycle from behind and the accident. As a result, the ciaimant and the driver/respondent No.2 fell down on the roaa. ! ne ciaimant sustained grievous injuries whereas the injuries tiy respondent No.2 were fesser. Therefore, respondent No.2 tooK the claimant to a nearby hospita! through autorickshaw, from where he was referred to Orthopedist, whereupon he was admitted in Orthopea'ist Hospit-al of Dr. Sanjeev Khana'uja. After reaisterina the offence under Cr.No.591/06 at Police Station : Civii Lines, Bilaspur, the ciaimant was got medicaiiy examined and motorcycle and the uocumems were seized. On account of accident, the main thiah bone ofthe right leg nearthe hip joint has been fractured, and there^re, lea ofthe claimant was to be operated upon on 28.7.2006. He was advised to have three months bed rest. The claimant remaineu in Dr. -;--.fe^ o Sanjeev Khanduza's Hospital from 27.7.2006 to 5.8.2006. Even after operation, the claimant is unabie to move freely without any support and has sustained ®a^3permanent disabiiity. The claimant was working as conductor in the bus and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefbre, he filed a cialm petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehlcies Act, (in short "the Act, 1988") for a totai compensation of i'3 n/tn/ = >-^^A*" tj-.-k? r^s.-sj,wuyi'~ ui iyci veii L--.,_-,-J_-^. -IS i |i£i3US. ^ LjAAf^ lA^i.^A^ ^—; i"-.i>-,.-^J ?_-,?• ^1^./\ i,--;"4-L.-.," i-..-,";;----_-! ?'h-A ' ,-,.,s..^" p-rt< ;s4 U^. nSdFQ ISdlllSU CUUilSQI VOI IRs; pciUiy^, peiUis^U Uis i-UW^I OUUit p>^^^-,-l /! /^Q\ -S^ 'S!i-?rt ^his :?"";'^".".-4 ^^?-5r-?J 'i U ^L.-fc./it^ e^S dlO<J U IS iE ls|jUyi iS^i filV¥Siij. n/i ( ^^~.^^^1 ^.^, ,s-.^,A! S^.,.. ^.t.^^, .—..-..^^H-^A UAA .rtA-.A^Ii-.-1--..^ i'^.--^ t11-.. 4. L€%mSG COUHS81 TOF THe 5pp8t!8ui H3S CGHISnQSu inSi. [ii' ^- cisinisnt wss a puiion riasr QHCI no aoQiuonsi pr©miumwas p8io TOs il-,^ i-;A3- ^-..f *I^A ^:!!!^..^ c.'.^^y, .-<."K-S -.-—_^, s ,^i., i.'-.A }:^^f ss—..—...—.. covsnnQ ins nsK OT ine piiiion nasr ana as sucn, ine insurance ^*^ C^--Jki t^ J<^ iT^ t .< ?^-^ u^.4-^41 i ' ^^ l-^ '---~*1 ff**,?^ V^.*"^^ f^'^ ^l.^^^ J'^,'^ -^J*^*4"U^^^Ly->^t<'^-^*-~'^±—5.Tn^?/"u LuJJ"^ ^-7UI; ?'1'- :?; iS^:"1^^!:^^ company is ROI iiacie ror paymeni OT compcusaiion. Me nas ruriner contsnuSu tiiat ins CiSimsnt/piiiiOH naer c8rin0t 08 u68iGu as uitiQ ?-,-£rf-^ ijaliy. l^ .-^J,-J:A:^^ A^ ^his- ^"i H^^ ^^^"i5,i^^ .£,.--! fh-SA 'ai-'i' -3!E-^in!l.-'^^^s"i^ f^r in aaaiuon 10 inis, ns nas conienasa inai 3ri appiicaiion 101 ^A,.?—:^-;.-".,. il-,^^.,.,. Q^.-,^.:^^. ^—T1^f ^.L.^ A^A 'IQCSQ ^S/<Si:? fU.2:.-' rt^ hash-slf r^f p8nTiission unosr ^>8Cuon 1/u OT in©ACX) i^oo w^s TIISQ 00 psii^ii ui the insurance coiTipany on 13.7.2007, but ths sams was not decideu S^t , it^^ -T'i.:L.,, ,n^! A?U ^...-;s-.->:i-.^ ^S *^^ ? B-,^?-t? S.-.-S-^.A' ^-.•,<;;.»ii-.TJ ^E-; /3 '7 Qnnss ^;st^ -^s oy ins i riDunai liii passiny or ine iiTipugnso awarQ on .s./.zuuo ana as such, ths app6iiant/insur8fi00 ccmpsny hss b6©n prsjudlosd In Its dsfsncs. On tliis count, hs submits thst he ma'y' bs permittcu to argue this sppssl on CjUantum ss wetl or thc case may b@ rsmittfiu bacK to the Tribuna! for deciding the application of the appellant/insurance company fiteu undsr Section 170 of th6 Act, 1988 and then for passing an award afrssh. 05. On the contrary, Searned counse! for respondent No.2/driv6r has contondsd thst ths !mpuQH§dswsrd is quit8 l©9£ilsnd prop©raud calls for no interference by this Court. 06. During the course of argumerrts, learned counsei for the appeiiant/insurance company has coRcsded that iis does not want to chslienyfi th@ liability part aa the policy Issueu by ths insurancs company was a motorcycie packayc poiicy and as such, risk of tiie ^:'!:^^ -L-^.-," •;A3^-^ ,«iAi?.ra,"^,?J i-^S' :A piHiuii iiugi Wd^ uuvfc?iuu uy ii. f>~7 !»•) An application under Section 163A of the Act, 1988 was filed by the claimant/injured for grant of compensation and the Tribunai, after 1 ^ -^ A.? —-I^Ii i..-. AI-- i-..<,s.4.:. giving opporsunity or neanng ana OT aaaucing to me sassed the impugned award. Frorn perusa! of the LCR, it is clear that an application under Section 1 70 of the Act, 1 988 was filed on behaif of the appeflant/insurance company and the sarne was not decided by th< Tribunal till ofthe impugned av/ard on 3.7.2008. Though it was the bounden u'uty of the Tribunal to have the said application either way, but, at the time, it 'was fhe duty of the counsei' for the appei'Jant/Jnsurance company to see and insist that its application is before start of evidence on behalf of the insurance company. Hovv'ever, the same was not done on the part of thf appelianf/insurance company. From the subsequent conduct of the counsei for the appeilant/insurance cornpany, it can be inferred that he had nof the appiication under Section 1 70 of the Act, 1988 after filing it. Unless an appiication under Section 170 of the Act, 1988 is allowed and permlssion is granfed to the insurance company to contest the ciaim on a!i the ground available to it, the insurance company can only contest the claim on the grounds enumerated in 149(2) of the Act, 1988 -and cannot be afiowed to chaiienge the quanturn part in appeai as in the absence of permission under Section 170 of the Act, 1988, the appeai of fhe insurance company, so far as is concerned, is not maintain-able under Section 173 of the In this connection, reiiance has upon thejudgments of the Hon'ble Su'preme Court in the matters of SA^ 3"?, BA-. S g ^QS1 F»~» ^^^%^ fftrf^ ^^g'^a '£UW W 7Z08,' s s.^a ^"f^^&^d.si ^BSS SO SSQS^ NatiQfs^s iitSCifa Aff? SC and Devi and othet's Vs. Hew liidis Assut'ance Co. Ltd. antf others, Aif' "j^^^S S>^» /?nl^/S 08. In view of the policy issued in favour of the owner of the motorcycie, the injured/claimant/piliion rider was covered under the poiicy. Therefore, 1 find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Interference by this Court. ' ^- 1% 09.. In tRe r^altyhe^geal^g|ig;%h<3^an^sHbs^ ^jsmiss,^an^ltlTe^ni^F^;|aB^||atie§^y;al^|2^ Tribunal iR^laitm<3ase^o/^2^6^afBr^^^1'here^siiallibe^ as,tocosts.'':.t'-^:. ::.-»^..-~:-^ j'::»: 10. M thjs junetyre.Sleamed^^ company ha&drawn at<sntiottj^%!Sy^ riumberof'&ases,,the^app!}G§tiB^^led^underSeetion 1^^ 1988 op beha!^ of thegjr^urari^^ wjthout deeiding tile sarrie;?theja'i^attis iii@JNei|is|^a^ysby^He;claims^ Znbunal, thereby preitiijleingithg^ eompanfes and furtl^J^ep^^ quantum^::!Raj^j;:iRfcapReai||:l^:|BR||eR;sS|(|MCTiI%;;% TB|ref6re^ne t^ i^i^^efl^a^a^lSeBQF^ claims iHbujaalsliin the^^e^ %M!iiff appti^ioris uo^Sectii^ 1^^^tii?^,1§88i^^^ ^SN iof^dence.:: •-'.;••••.•••'•^ TI.VVeaFeeoming^eressigiinHrFt^rWc^^ uRderSectiori 170 o|rthe^g|9ig|flle(||by e-i^ fer Rgrmj^ion to Gentest?4Bg^ain|j ^^^ person agatnst whomtheGlaim is^m^ withcHit deGiding^h& saffie, awai^ aretbeinf pas^d^^^i doubt th^ in sych.a state^^flairs. tMe JHsyi^n^^ definifely prejudk;ed in^Beir^ef^(^^ exanifinethe;witn6ssesofth®^tgiBiar^?Qr^ttrepoiRtof^U nor<anadduGeth^evider>GeW?th^samear^in^ciitie)nttieFeto,;for want of permission, ^their^pp^^t&^^ eompensation iSfNl^llyWaNaiftableundCT ;1'988.,,.;':';:::::?:;.''-,:;.:^^^ 12. {n view of-this^ it i&^t^ Glaims Tribunals inthis.regar^.38itxMifiglXKa^ the StateofGGare(iirectegto|ye(a<^tfieiapplications,^ beha|fofthe^nsurance;comRiRyiiUnderSeetjoFt4^c^lB&%^,^ Wf.sSS '.f K eitherway,?expe^itiOHslyKand|tr|ije^cyGaie;ttij^r^;star^ ThisBirectionst^fctbe^^triGtl^ll^wSd^yiffieclaji^ Sd;- [.I ^-