^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSOARH A BILASPURfC.G.) MISC. APPEAL (C) N0;7d66 OF 2010 (S.B.1 ^PPELLANT ^'-•Khomlal, aged about 33 years S/o i, . MuluKaushik, R/o Village \\jS _ , ^.. -.^-^^», /^ • s l/r -.•^ .. f.:/> .: - . " - .. '- C)0.^..1--""'j7l^(^'"Singhanpuri,P. S. Sahaspur Lohara :.•-••" ^^^-...- DistrictjCabirdham (C.G.). VS-"'K:'<^ ^••1"':*. ...••"'"' : —^1-- ^ Wi"s"" ' ': ...•••" ^?^^"''''''.'' :' ^•"f\y7l-' : _______ VERSUS (Owner of the vehicle) RESPONDENTS 1.. Kesri Bai, aged about 24 years W/o Late Dinesh Kaushik; Ku. Nidhi, aged about 1 1/2 years D/o Late Dinesh Kaushik; Minor, through her natural guardian mother Kesri Bai; Bofh R/o Village Singhanpur, P. S. Sabaspurlohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.). 3.. Bhagwati ,Bai, aged about 55 years W/o Late Mulu Kaushik, R/o Village .Singhanpuri, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). ~'c^y" (Claimants ) ,4. United India Insurance Company, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). (Insurer)' MISGELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OP THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT, 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT M.A.fC) No.1066 of 2010 Khomlal RESPONDENTS Versus Kesri Bai & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23rd day of October, 2010) Heard on admission. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the no fault award dated 18.08.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (for short 'the Tribunal) under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act'), awarding Rs. 50,000/- as no fault compensation in favour of claimants and as against the appellant/owner exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay any compensation to the claimants. 2. ' The main grievance raised by Shri Bhaduri is that instead of opining prima-facie, the Tribunai has held on merits that the •driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effectlve driving license at the time of accident, whereas this findings should have been subject to final decision ofthe claim petition. 3. The contention raised by Shri Bhaduri has merit, though 1 do not inclined to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal, but at the same time it is alsp true that the issue regardlng Sahu breach of condition of policy by the owner should have been finally decided by the Tribunal after framing issue in this regard and after affording opportunity to adduce evidences to the parties. 4. Therefore, it is directed that the Tribunal shall frame the above issue and the same be decided after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidences in this regard without being influenced by the observation made by the Tribunal in the order impugned. 5. With the above observation and direction, this appeal is disposed of. No order asto costs. ___ Sd/- N.K.Agarawal Judae