IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAPSUR Misc. Appeal {C} No._2-_^? /2011 Bsn &.a» <s?^ j APPELLANT RESPONDENTS ^/f/^ ^y//^ ^^ /, '"•sf •' ^/ /°' A^ J5'!/ €^'/' ffi Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Shivmohan Bhawan, Pandri Raipur (C.G.) {Insurer} VERSUS 1) Mrs. Rambai W/o tularam Dhru aged about 25 vears,""——HfcP— -s' 2) §-' 3) «-• 4) ^ 5) 6) Ku. Kunti d/o Late Tul^rani Dhru, ^ aged about 07 years, Suraj S/o Late Tul^-am Dhru, aged about 05 years, (all vminor through guardian mother Mrs. Rambai) Rarabha Bai w/o Late Baijhru aged about 50 years, All resident of Vill. Kurekera, P.S. chhura, Tahsil Chhura, distt. Raipur C.G. (Claimants) Raghav Devangan S/o Dhannu urf Dhanwa Devangan, aged about 23 years, R/o Maulipara, Fingeshwar P.S. Fingeshwar Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Driver) Alok Kuinar Sharma S/o Anil KumarSharma R/o vill. Tikrapara, Pingeshwar, P.S. Fingehswar, Tahsil Rajim, distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Owner) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994 /si£is3s5=^^ f <S^^3 ^., / F^ 1il •• ^ Yi^ ^ >6- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR ^ DB: HON'BLE I. M. QUDDUSI & HOM'BLE G. MINHAJUDD1N, JJ [.AICl No. 269 OF 2011 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS: Bajaj ABianz General InsuTaace Company Ltd. Vs. Saiitram aad two ofhers •AICi No. 268 OF 2011 APPELLANT RESPONDBNTS: Bajaj Allianz Geileral Insurance Coinpany Ltd. Vs. Mrs, Raiabai and five others MISCELLANEOU8 &PPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEKICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, counsel for fhe appeUaat/ Insurance Co. Mr. Kesav Dewaagan, counsel for respondent no.3 in M.A.C.No. 269/2011 & respondent no.6 in M.A(C). 268/2011. Mrs. Sharmila Siaghai, counsel for respondents 1 to 4 in. M.A.C.268/2011. ORAL ORDBR (21.11.2011) Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J. 1. This appeals have been filed by the Insurance Coiupany againstthe impugned awanls 09.11.2010 & 10.11.2010 passed separately by fhe Additional Motor Accident Clahns Tribiinal, Gariabaad, District Raipur (C.Q) in Claim Case Nos.59/2010 & 35/2010 respectively in so far as it relates to fasteniag liability upon fhe appcllant to pay compensation to fhe claimaats. r // ^.;A "-^.. ^ M.A.C. 269/2011 relates to Claim Case No.59/2010 (Sciniram Dhruv -vs- Raghcw Oewangan and. others) and M.A.C. No.268/2011 relates to Claim Case No.35/2010 (Smt. Rambcd and others -va- Rcighav Dewangan and others). Since both these appeals arise out the same accident inet wifh by vehicle bearing Regn.No.C.G.06/0540, fhey are being disposed of by ttus coinxaon. order. 2. Brief facts of titie case as' per the version of tbe claimaats are that on 21.03.2010 deceased Tulas Dhruv and iajured claimant Sautram Dhruv were traveUng iu Mini Bus beariag Regn.. No. C.G.06/0540. They were goiug fix>in Mahasamund to Fuigeshwar. At about 10 a.m.., the said. Bus which was being driven by non-appUcaat iio.l Raghav Dewaagan iu a rash and negligent inanner overturued near village Shei^aon, as a result of which, TuJas Dhruv sustaii^ed grievous injuries and be was brought to the District Hospital, Mahasataund where he declared dead. Anofher occupaat Sautram Dhruv, claimaut/appeILaut ia M.A.C.269/11 also sustaiued serious iajuries on his face, r^ht leg aad both the hands. He was brought to the Mahasainuad District Hospital aad for better treatiaent, he was shifted to Agraseu Hospital, San^ta Colony, Raipiu- where he has undertaken treatoient from 22.03.2010 to 26.03.2010. It is aUeged fhat due to the iajuries sustained by him, he becana.e pemiaaently disabled. The dependents/legal heirs of the deceased Tulas Dhruv have filed claim petition (Claim Case No.35/2010) under section 166 &140 offhe MotorVebictes Act,. 1988 forfhe award of total compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- fixim non-applicants - f'..- 'l- IKl '% ^<7/ ^ ^ on vanous heads whereas the iajured claimaxit Saatram has filed claim petition (Claun Case No.59/2010) seekmg a total coiapensation ofRs.5 lakhs froin the non-appUcaats. 3. The leamed Clauns Tribuiial has held tbat the vebicle ia question was iuvolved ia tlie accident in which Tulas Dhruv died whereas Saatram sustained injuries aud had uiidei^one treatment aud fhe clainiants of deceased Tiilas Dhruv are entifled to receive a total coiapensation of Rs.4,28,000/- whereas fh.e iajiired claunaat Saatraui is eatiUed to get compensation ofRs.64,000/- froin the non-applicaats joiutly or severaUy. 4. Leamed counsel for fhe appeUaut subniits that theie was no permit issued by the RTO at fhe time of accident, therefore, fhere was breach ofconditions ofthe Insuraace PoUcy. 5. We have heard leamed counsel for the parties aad have also gone fbrough the records 6. On perusal of the record, we have found that the vehicle was ptyiug wifhout pennit. Leamed Tribunal has given its findiag ia favour of the owner mentioning tbat as the owner had applied for pemait before the date of accident aad had deposited the prescribed fee in adVaace for issuance of fhe permit, therefore, he canaot be held responsible. But to our view, fhere was no proper permit because the vehicle was beiag plied oiily subject to issuance of prospective permit aud tberefore, if fhe permit was not ^sued, the owner had no occasion to ply fhe vehicle ia absence ofthe permit. However, if aay fee was paid ia advance for getring the permit, it was totaUy fhe risk of fhe owner and therefore fhere was breach of conditions of ftie iasuraace poUcy. Hence we are of fhe opiuion K^^S ^ysa3 '^ /?r" that fhe iasurance coinpany caiuiot be held Uable to pay coinpensation aad on fhis ground, the iiisuraiice coiapany is liable to be aad is hereby exonerated, However, it wiU be open for fhe claunauts to reaUse fhe amouut of conapensation fi^om. fhe owner aud driverjoiufly or severally. 7. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. No order as to coste. Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge 1 Rao N^