>j ^u ^i^' IN THE HONBLEHIGH^OURTOF CHHAmSGARH AT BILAPSUR Misc.Appeal fC{ Wo.^ Q^~^ 12009 PPELLANT ^^..l^l.,. t—^,'Reliance General »->II^~BA"^/.^/;|.U' •r Company Limited, •S,-^''" Starribh' Chowk; APPELLANT ^.^-r^ ^. •Reliance General Insurance Ravi Bhavan, Jai Raipur (C.G.) {Insurert VERSUS RBSPONDENTS 1) <. Lakhanlal S/o Holsai Verma, aged about 45 years, ^ ^) g Praniila Bai W/o Lakhanlal Verma, ' ' aged about 44 years, 3Jf Ku. Anju D/o Lakhanlal Verma, aged about 17 years, Ku. Kiran D/o Lakhanlal Verma, aged about 15 years, Resp. No. 3 & 4 rainor represented through natural guardian father Lakhanlal Verma, All R/o Village 8s Post Guma, Via Gracim, District Raipur (C.G.) (Claimants) Sanjay Kuinar Dewangan S/o F'unaram Dewangan, Permanent R/o Village Keseli Via Arang, Thana Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) Presently at Pahadi Chowk Gudhiyari, Dewangan Para, House of Hari Janghel, Thana Gudhiyari Raipur (C.G.){Dnver) M/s Atul Gases, Through authorized officer, M/s Atul Gases, 70/A, Industrial Area, Nandini Road, Bhilai, District Durg fC?G.) (Owner) 5). 6) MEMORANDUM QFLAPPEAL UNDKR SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994 o. AT BILA; r«!inf*a^»MOS'-Bii.aj UIVISIUN BCBI .i^.ISj-; lejiani MR. U r—i &E— 1"*\ ^t. 1 ^ .^ -^ .^ ^^ ^^^ Jl^ M^y^ _fL Eir^al. ! 1 a"i _*^_ e i ^.•**t. SfVL ^».i^ ^^^ .^ 1 ^ ^^t Keiiance uenerai insurancs uo. uu. iaipur (CG) Lakhanlat and n idents M. Reliance General insurance Co. Lt< Raipur (i Netram Dhruw an< ifhers Mr. SS Rajput, counsel for the appellant/insurance company. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondents No. 1 in MA(c) No. 1196/09. Mrs. M. Asha, counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6 in MA(c) No.1057/09. ird 1. These tv/o fiied by the appellant/i-nsurance company are being decided by this common order as they arise out of the sams accident. 2. MA (C) No. 1057/09 and MA (c) No. 1196/09 have been preferred against the award 30.4.2009 in Ciaim Case Nos.01/09 and 49/08 respectively, by 10th Additional Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal, Raipur (in short "the Tribunat"), insofar^s it has fastened iiability upon the app61!ant/insurance company. 3. Brief of the case are that on 28.12.2007 Ashish Kumar Verma along with one Maniram Dhruv Vi,'as going from Raipurto Siltara on motoroycie bearing registration No. CG-04-CM/1570. The ' motorcycie was being driven by Ashish Kumar Verrna and Manirarn Dhruv was a piilion rider, At th-at tirne, at about 10.30 pm, the driver .i. o/i -l"¥ . Af:s«A,t^ has of vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07-ZC-1030 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle"), whteh was coming from opposite direction, by driving the offending vehicte in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycie of Ashish Kumar Verma, as a result of which Ashish Kumar Verma and Maniram Dhruv fell down, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Their respective heirs filed separate c.1aim petitions under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehic!es Act, 1988 (in short "the'Act, 1988") before the Tribunal for compensation under various heads. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, the LCR as also the impugned award. 5. Learned counse! for the appei! submitted Shat the driver not having a vaiid and effecfive urivin^ licence but the officiaf from Regiona! Transport Office came info witness box and that there were t'/i'o registers whereas, in fact, in the office only one register is rnaintained. The appeliant's counsei had pr-ayed for declarmg this wltness as hostlle, however, that prayer was not allowed. 6. The fact which needs to be ascertained is as to how two registers are maintained in one office for issuing driving iicence, which coulc not be clarified by' the officia! of the RTO. Therefore, it is necessary for the Tribunai to conduct an enquiry in this regard as provide under Sections 168, 169 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the CG Motor Vehicle Ruies, 1994. 7. !n the resuit, we allow these in part, set aside the impugned awards and remit the rnatter back to the ci-aims Tribunai to decids the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, in the !ight of observations made above. Neediess to mention that the parties sha.Il aiso be allowed to amend the pleadings, aa'duce further evidence, file documents and set the documents verified etc. and thereafter, fresh findings shall be given by t-he Tribunai and award shail be passed afresh. The Tribunal shaii make an endeavour to decide the ciaim petitions afresh as expeditiously as possibie, preferably w'ithin a period of three months from the of appearance of the parties or of /y of the order proceeding ex-parte against any of the parties, as tiie case may bs. !t is clear that the amount, if any, deposited by ths a{3peilant/insurance cornpany be in a nationaiized bank in the forrn of deposit for a period of one year and the same shall be subject to the decision to be taken afresh. 8. Partiss shail appear before the Ts'ibunal on 8 September, 2011. 9. LCR be to fhe Tribunai without further deiay. 10. No ord.er as to costs. 11 .Certified copy as per rules Sd/- 1-M.Quddussi Judge Sd/- G-Minhajjudin Judge |pMR?T"