^w IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR JVHSC. APPEAL N0. €?>&£OF 2006 BiVlrittl! B8 ^" APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF IVIOTORVEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appellant •^on-Appticant no. 2 Respondents / Versus ^ 2, Udeshi Ram Sahu S/o Khajwa Sahu, aged about 70 years R/o Village - Mehna, P.0. Sambalpur P.S. Nandghat, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Suresh KumarVerma, S/o Sarju Prasad Verma, aged about 30 years, R/o Village - Amora, P.S. nandghat, Tehsil - Nawagarh, Distt. Durg(C.G.) (Non-applicant no. 1) Divisional Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, R/o Upper portion o U.T.1. Bank, New Bus Stgand, Pandri, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Non-applicant no. 3) ^3. (" Lagni Bai Wd/o Balram yadav, aged about 28 years. (Minor) Mohan Yadav S/o Late Balram Yadav, aged about12 years (Minor) Kishanlal, S/o Late Balram Yadav, aged about 3 years f€ ^t. 5.(k ^.6. ^Budhiarin BaiWd/o Sonuram Yadav, aged about 55 years (All R/o Village Mehna, P.0. Sambalpur, P.S. Nandghat, Distt. Durg^C.G.). Minor applicants no. 4 & 5 through natural guardian mother Lagni BajWd/o Balram Yadav (Claimants) Claim in Aooeal for settina aside/modification of award, valued at Rsf3,82,500/- (Rupees Three Lacs Eightv Two Thousand Five Hundred only) Court fee affixed Rs. / ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR " M. A. fC) No. 386 of 2006 Appellant Udeshi Ram Sahu Versus Respondents Suresh Kumar Verma 85 others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES AC'LJ988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi SB Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Sanjay S. Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No.l. Shri S. S. Rajput, Advocate for the respondent No.2. None for the respondents No. 3 to 6. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 5U1 day ofApril, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/owner against the impugned award dated 28U1 July, 2006 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, in Claim Case No. 24/2005, awarding a sum ofRs. 3,82,500/- as compensation to the claimants. 2. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 14.7.2005 deceased Balrain Yadav along wifh Rohit, in the capacity of Labour, was going to village - Mohbhatta froni village - Mohna by Tractor - Trolley, bearing registration No. C.G. 7-D/2437 & 2438, in order to bring crushed stones (Gitti). On that day at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening when they reached near village—Deori, due to rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant No.l (Suresh Verm^.), deceased Balran-i fell down from the trolley, as a result of fhat accident he received -grievous injuries and succumbed to thpse ihjuries. The matter was reported to the police station Bhatapara Rural, where the offence was registered against the non-applicant No.l. The claimants, being legal heirs of deceased Balram filed an application under Section 166 of the 1 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total coinpensation of Rs. 8,00,OOO/- under various heads. 3. The appellant/owner has field the instant appeal irapugning the award, so far as it relates to fixation of liability upon the appellant/owner. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the papers available on record and found that the insurance policy was the policy under the heading "MISCELLANEOUS AND SPECIAL TYPE OF VEHICLE CERTIFICATE-CUM-POLICY-SCHEDULE". In the said policy for the legal liability to paid driver and/or cleaner a premium of Rs. 25/- was paid and for 'others-coolies' a premium of Rs. 100/- was paid and the package premium. has been taken as Rs. 5352/- in all. 5. Although, learned Claims Tribunal has imposed the liability upon the owner but no specific findings has been given as to why this liability has been fastened upon the owner and not upon the insurance company. 6. It is evident that the Issue No. 5 'A' is in regard to whether the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have violated the conditions of driving licence, permit and insurance policy (% gw 3iiicic;fj % 1 ? 2 -^ 41i4 l dlW'i'H, ^RfttS ^ 'ftW wRl-t!) ^t' W^f ?Kff ^r vscffjtl-1 f^TT f ) and the Issue No. 5 'B' is in regard to then whether the non-applicant No.3 insurance company is liable to pay the compensation ( s: r?? ?W w'll^* % 3 ^W **ti'fl 3W ^ ^ fiRii^ii^l'i f } and by the impugned award learned Claims Tribunal has given answer to the issue No. 5 'A' as partly affirmative' and the answer of issue No. 5 'B' as 'affirmative but ultimately the liability upon the owner has been fixed. 7. We have seen that the policy of the tractor-trolley is only for the 'agricultural and forestry purposes' but the 'comniercial vehicles package policy' as well as farmers package insurance policy' schedule have also been given which are parts of the record. The premium paid to cover the risk of the 'Coolie' would come under the 'farmers package insurance policy' or under the legal liability' or under the 'coinmercial vehicles package policy' has not been determined by the Tribunal. ..«iasT"<%,, f'f-^ "e^ -°!''&,. '^ ...^ 8. In view of the above, we have no other option except to rerait back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh. 9. In the result, we allow this appeal in part, set-aside the impugned award dated 28.7.2006 and reinit back the raatter to the Tribunal for decision afresh. No order as to costs. 10. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of the'r pleadings and may file further docunients and get the documents verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal on raerits. 11. The aniount, if any, deposited shall remain in deposit till the decision afresh is taken by the Tribunal. However, if the same has already been disbursed, no recovery shall be made till the fresh decision by the Tribunal. 12. Parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 5th May, 2011. 13. The lower Courts record shall be sent back forthwifh. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur '-^