1 '-> IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDJCATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH »._<• a . P ^^ ;,i "^ '^ ^^ ;,B;'^*| ^ias ;-ei • KSyii CBii-SH APPELLANT .y'W .-•" <i?/ u? M.A.(C) NoP'7'( /2006 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited 'Malviya Nagar, Durg (C.G.) Through Divisional Manager, Durg (C.G.) (Policy issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhamtari, Branch Office Dhamtari (C.G.) /^ .^y/ ^^/ ^'..f VERSUS RESPONDENTS :-1. ^Smt. Omlata W/o Late Rajulal Deshmukh, Aged about 30 years. 1. f/ Manilata D/o Late Rajulal Deshmiikh, Aged about 7 years. 3. I1 Omesh S/o Late Rajulal Deshmukh, Aged about 3 years. 4. Si Smt. Gaindi Bai W/o Makhanlal Deslimukh Aged about 65 years. Omlata, Deshmukh W/o Rajulal Deshmukh aged about 30 years behalf of Minor No. 2 &3 All resident of- Behind Kabristan, Ganjpara, Durg(C,G.)' Rakesh Kumar Sahu S/o Lakhanlal Sahu, Aged about 34 years. R/o Ganesh Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District- Dhamtari. 6., Ramchandra Baryani S/o Rahandomal Baryani, aged about 40 years, R7o Baniyapara, Dhamtari, Tah. & District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) 7 /~i Murlidhar S/o Tharumal Siadhi, R/o Baniyapara, In front ofJagdish Type, Dhamtari, Tah. & Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988. HIGH COURT OP CHH^mSGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (QNo. 679 of 2006 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Corapany Liraited Versus Respondents Smt. Omlata SE others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,J,988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hontile Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ 'Sf^ri S. P. Sahu, Advocate for the appellant. Sh^i Vikram Dbsit, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4. None for the respondents No. 5, 6 8s 7. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 20th day ofjuly, 2011 ) Per I. N. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal, filed by the Insurance Company, arises from the impugned award dat^d 19.9.2006, passed by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg, in Claim Case No. 339/2005, awarding a sum ofRs. 4,80,750/- as compensation. 2. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 14.11.2004 deceased Rajulal, along with his family (wife and children) was going to village Sareha from Ganjpara Durg on Bajaj Kawasaki Motorcycle, bearing registration No. C.G. 07/ZN - 7465. On the way, near Hanuman Rice Mill at village Kuthrel, a Maruti Van, bearin^ registration No. C.G. 05/ZD - 1008, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the non-applicant No.l (Rakesh Kumar Sahu) directly hit. the motorcycle from the opposite direction. As a result of this accident Rajulal, his wife and children ^ ^^SSasfe^ ^~ 7. received grievous injuries and during treatment Rajulal died on 23.11.2004 in the hospital. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 42,95,OOO/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,80,750/- along with interest at the rate of 6%, holding the non-applicant No. 3/present appellant Insurance Company as liable to pay the amount of compensation. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court records. We have perused the written stateinent of the appellant Insurance Company and found that the plea was taken that there were four passengers sitting on the motorcycle which collided with the Maruti Van, the Maruti Van was not insured by the appellant and also that the driver of the Maruti Van was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident but no issue has been framed in this regard by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal. In view of the foregoing, we think it proper that the matter should be reconsidered by the Tribunal' and give its findings afresh in the light of the observations niade hereinabove. Therefore, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugn'ed award dated 19th Septeraber, 2006 and remit the inatter to the Tribunal for decision afresh in the light of the observadons made in the body of this order. No order as to costs. - - 8. Consequently, the cross objection filed by the claimants have become infructuous. 9. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get fhe documents verified etc. The parties may raise the issue regarding maintainability of the claim petition as well as other issues, if so advised. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal, as early as possible. 10. The amount, if any, deposited by the insurance company, shall remain in deposit till decision of the claim petition, afresh. 11. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 17th August, 2011. 12. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from the Tribunal, forthwith. I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge