'*'t^ 31vtelon BssiiGS IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARILAT^ILASPUR MISC. APPEAL [C1 N0. 19 5^ /2010 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR APPELLANT INSURER VEHICLES ACT, 1988 ICICI Lombdrd, General Insurance Company Limited, Registered offlce: ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra- Kurla, Complex, Mumbai, 4000 51, through its Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Lal Ganga -i^Shopping Mall, 3rd Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.). :r ^\.« ?~t» RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS ^v'. ^l^s^ f2^/^ ^•^' VERSUS 1. Smt. Shanti W/o Late Bhaiyaram, Caste - Gond, aged about 60 years, Occupation - House wife Jagram D/o Late Bhaiyaram, Wd/o Late Shivlal, Caste - Gond, aged about 40 years, (married daughter dependent on her father) Both are R/o West Chirmiri, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koria, OWNER DRIVER 3. Director, Tirupati Road Lines, C/o 7 Poonam Traders, Bus Stand Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 4. Ashok Kumar Khairwar S/o Samay Lal Khairwar, Aged about 25 years, R/o village - Dhanwarkala, P.S. - Chalgali, District - Surguja present address - Malma Dafai, Koria Colliery, P.S. - Chirmiri, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koria (C.G.) APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 14,25,412 /- Being aggrieved against the award dated 20/08/2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims ssasssi^. ---^ ;'"StS^ "di '^ t, ':yS-.-.. ^. . I.M. ,.A. [Cl No. 1258/201 Vs ICICI Lombard 6enerai Insurance Co. Ltd. Smt. Shanti & others Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate for respondent Nos.l &2. Mr. J.A. Lohani, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the State. .ith ber. 2011) 1. Heard. 2. The appellant-Insurance Company, has filed this appeal against 1+ie award dated 20.08.2010 passed by the iearned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Koriya (Baikunthpur) (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Ciaim Case No.34/07 thereby pnrtly allowing application of the claimants, awnrding compensation and fastening liability on the cppellant herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.02.2007, in the night shift, deceased Bhaiyaram was engaged as labourer in R-5 Mines, Bunker Haldibadi, Chirmiri to load coal in the Dumpers. At about 5.30 a.m. the respondent No.4 reversed his vehicle in a rash and ne9!igent manner as a result the deceased pressed under his vehicle and died on the spot. The ctaimants, who are widow and daughter of the deceased, have filed ctaim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.54,80,000/- on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, who was the sole earning member in the famity, and due to his death they suffered loss of income. 4. The Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties in the matter aliowsd the claim application, awarded a sum of Rs.14,25,412/- along with interest @ ^ /' ' "- 1 '}..s •*iy;—flii-i^.-^. . . ^t ^ -&. . • ^ '^,^-.. ^ ..^?-"' 7.5% p.n. and saddled the appellant herein with the liability to satisfy the award. 5. We haye heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award os atso the record of the Claims Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that accident was not taken ptace wilti the vehicle in question i.e. C615-A-5215 (Dumper), but it was taken ptace by vehicle bearing registration No.C615-A-4555 (Hywa) But, according to the statement of respondent No.4-&river of vehicie No.C615-A-4555 (Hywa), there was no other vehicie exoapt vehicls No.C<915-A-5215 (Dumper) which had already ieft the place and at the time of his arriyal, the deceased was already dead arsd he had informed this fact to one t)ilip, ^ttendance Clerk cmd others but none has appeared in l+ie witness box to support the statement of The respondent No.4 herein, rather one Dilip (NAW-2) has stated in his statement that Khalasi of yehicle No.C615-A-5215 informed him that the accident was taken place with the vehicle No.C615-A-5215 and when he reached on the spot, he saw that deceased Bhaiyalal was already dead. Respondent No.4 has also stated in hisstatement that when he reached on the spot, vehicle No.C615-A-4555 had already ieft the place. The place of incident was not a place where there was common traffic but it was place where coai was being loaded and the deceased was deputed in the work of loading of coal ~ in the trucks. Thus, it cannot be said that vehicle No.C615-A-5215 was not involved in the accident or that the accident was not taken place with that vehicle. 7. Further, learned counsel for the appeliant has drawn attention of this Court- towards contents of the ciaim application wherein age of the widow of the deceased has been mentioned as 60 years and age of daughter (widow) of the deceased noimely Jagram has been mentioned as 40 years, whereas age of the deceased has been mentioned as 50 years in -riie claim application as well as in the postmortem report. i. The question as to how age of daughter of the deceased could be 40 years when he himself was 50 years old at the time of accident. Even, the widow 'i.^SS'-^.s: ^as&BSSsesww^s.iS^s^ .-•'"'S^.S^'T^,.,,-, of the deceased is also 10 years older than the deceased. Further-, ctaimcuit No.l-Smt. Shanti has statsd in Para-1 of her preliminary statement that she has another daughter namely Kunti. who is married, however, she does not know her wher-eabouts. All these facts create doubt about the genwneness of the claim and therefore, we are of the opinion that a thorough enquiry, at the end of the Claims Tribunal, is required in the matter to determine the fact as to whether the claimants cr-e entitled for grant of compensation or not as per proviso to Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. In 1+ie result, we allow the appeql in part, set aside the impugned awoird and remit the matter back to the Ctaims Tribunal to decide the matter afresh in light of the observations made in this order. Tlie Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to theparties to adduce further evidence, if any. The parties shall a!so be entitled to amend the pleadings or to file 6r i/erify the documents atr-eady filed. Records -from the South East Coalfields Limited where the deceased was working shouid also be summoned. Fifty Percent of amount of compensation already deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company shall be kept in a fixed deposit scheme of a nationalized bank and shatl be subject to decision afresh in the lO.The parties are directed to appear- before •t+ie Claims Tribunai concerned sn 4 Januarv. 2012 either in per-son or through their counsel. The Registry is directed to tr-ansmit record of the Clairas tribunai concemed withuut fur-ther detay. ftoshan/- 11. Certified coDyas per rules. Sd/- . i> I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Ks"t,.l'i<;i. ''. .i-:..-^asaiE£i.ffl:'sg^^^^glg;g