i^- DivisjenBBndi ^ <..J^ U^" IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)No.- ^5^ /2009 APPELLANT ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SAINAGAR, RAIPUR (C.G.) Vrs, RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:- \^ ?.!« y HARIDAS S/0 RANJIT SINGH, CASTE - .^^ ^kff^ HALBA'AGE ABOUT 35 YRS. ^""^'Sftl&t^^^ VILLAGE -PAURKHEDA (THAKURPARA) ^^^ ... /^r PO.-RENGAKATHERA, TAHSIL & si. THANA - MOHALA, DISTRICT - RAJNANDGAON (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS 2. PRADEEP SINGH S/0 DHURANDHAR SINGH, AGE 22 YRS. RESIDENT OF SILAP, THANA BARGAWAN, DISTRICT- SIDHI, THROUGH PRABHU CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR (C.G.) 3. AKASH TIWARI S/0 PRABHULAL TIWARI,PRO. PRABHU CONSTRUCTION RAIPUR, SHYAM PETROL PUMP, RINGROAD, RAIPUR, RESIDENT OF CHOUBEY COLONY, HOUSE NUMBER-1, SAHKARF PATH, RAIPUR, DISTRICT- RAIPUR q—4. MENTAS COMPANY, KARENGATOLA, THANA & TAHSIL - MEHALA, DISTRICT - RAJNANDGAON (C.G.) [ APPEAL U1NDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEfflCLE ACT 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. 551 of 2009 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Bhagatram & others M.A. fQ No. 537 of 2009 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Haridas & others And M.A. (Q No. 720 of 2009 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Kaitram. & others MI8C. APPEALUNDER^ECTIONA73^QFLTHEMOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 6s Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ ^. Shri Sudhir Aganval, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company. Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the respondent/Maytas Company. Shri V. K. Sharma, Advocate for the claimants Haridas and Kaitram. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 24th day ofAugust, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. The instant three appeals (MA(C) Nos. 551, 537 and 720 of 2009), filed by the appellant/Insurance Company arises from the common award .dated 25.11.2008, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Rajnandgaon in Claim Case Nos. 33, 34 and 35 of 2008, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,51,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 3,75,372/, respectively, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The ground of challenge in these appeals is so far as the Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the ? i@i3i^, I -'^^£^^ ^ is %... ^y/ '^. ^^y ^ 7. compensation. However, there is breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. The facts, in brief, are that on 14.8.2007 Sadhuram, Kaitram and Haridas along with other labourers were going in the Truck, bearing registration No. C.G. 04-G/4793 as labour for construction of road. At about 9.00 a.m. on the Mohla - Gotatola road due to rash and negligent driving by Pradeep Singh (non-applicant No.l/driver) the vehicle turned turtle. In that accident Sadhuram succumbed to the injuries whereas Kaitram and Haridas received grievous injuries. The vehicle was owned by Shri Akash Tiwari, it was engaged for the work of Maytas Company and was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. Thelegal heirs/dependents of deceased Sadhuram filed the Claim Case No. 33/2008 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 16,50,000/-. Learned Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded a sum of Rs. 3,51,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum w.e.f. 1.2.2008. The injured/claimant Kaitram filed the Claim Case No. 34/2008 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 7,35,000/-. Learned Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum w.e.f. 1.2.2008. The injured/claimant Haridas filed the Claim Case No. 35/2008 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 16,00,OOO/-. Learned Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded a sum ofRs. 3,75,372/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum w.e.f. 1.2.2008. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the lower Court's record. N, ^ ,"" p>.-—^'..i' .€^-wi' 8. It has come in the evidence that the deceased Sadhuram and injured Kaitram & Haridas were travelling in the vehicle on the instructions of Maytas Company. As to whether it was on the direction of the company or the driver of the vehicle had permitted them to sit in the vehicle, was to be decided by the Tribunal. There were 18 persons traveling in the vehicle, whereas there was no seating capacity in the vehicle to travel 18 persons. The appellant Insurance Company also not insured the labourers or any gratuitous passengers, sitting in the vehicle but the Claims Tribunal has fastened the burden to pay compensation upon the insurance coinpany. Since there were clear breach of the insurance policy, the insurance company should not have been held liable to pay the compensation. However, the owner of the truck has stated in his written statement that the deceased, injured and other passengers were traveling in the vehicle on the direction of the Maytas Company but in the written statement the Maytas Company has denied this fact and they have also denied that the vehicle was being plied on their direction. Therefore, it was the duty ofthe Claims Tribunal to ascertain the inter se responsibility between Shri Akash Tiwari and Maytas Company as to who is responsible to pay the compensation. It is apparent that no one has produced any evidence in the above regard. Therefore, in our opinion it is a fit case to remit back to the Claims Tribunal to fix the responsibility to pay the amount of compensation after conducting a proper enquiry. 9. Therefore, in view of what has been observed by this Court hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal after conducting an enquiry as provided under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the M.P./C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we allow all the three appeals in part, set-aside the impugned award dated 25.11.2008 and remit back the --"^ 'y 12. 13. ^1 matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh in view of the obser^ations made hereinabove. On the issue No.2, in all the three awards, in respect of as to whether there was breach of the insurance policy, the findings of the Tribunal are set aside and it is held that there was clear breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. The findings regarding liability fastened upon the insurance company are also set aside. The Claims Tribunal shall fix the responsibility to pay compensation between Shri Akash Tiwari and Maytas Company. No order as to costs. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. The amount, if any, deposited shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the appellant/Insurance Company and if the amount is already paid to the claimants then it will be open to the Insurance Company to realize the same from the person who is held responsible to pay compensation, pursuant to the direction by the Claims Tribunal. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 29th September, 2011. 14. The lower Court records shall be sent back forthwith. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur