(5QD K CCW f ‘M EN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR §§§v§$§m Banch ‘vw MISCAPPEALNO. {9) /2004 vy, (CLAIM IN APPEAL VALUED AT Rs. 4,08,000/ -) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1% OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 ARISING OUT OF THE AWARD DATED 21/ 10/2000 PAbSED BY Tl-lb MPH ADDH‘IONAL MOHOK ALLIQENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (FT . SQRAJPUR DISTRICT SARGUJIL IN M.V.C NO 35{02 ‘ APPELLANT v’ Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through “ I (INbURER) Divisional Manager, Opposite (Ambikapur), Near Old Rice M111, P.s./Tehshi1/P.o. Amyfikapur, District Sarggja (CL G. ). {OWNER} {QiaSmL Dhana Devi W/o Vishnu Naravan r/O (ham—Jagdlshpui Mavajya, P05t Clnlha, Dlshjct—Mujag (U F ) (REGISTERED OWNER/ INSURED) (5$\°K5? Bnasgur (0G,). :9x‘9' ea“ R9} VS ' ‘ RESPONDENTS : ‘ 1. Smt. Sarla Singh W/o Mahondra Singh, aged 32 years, r/o Gram—Namnakala 3. Vishakha Barman Widow of late Vijay i, ; Kumau‘ Barman, aged 19 yearsi éccupatiml— House—Wife, Caste—Bengali. d; 4.‘ Ratan Barman s/o Kusai Barman, aged 60 years, occupation-Agriculturist, Caste- Bengali. , (CLAIMANTS) (Both r/o Gram-Koomalpur, RS. Jamagar, Tehsil—Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.). Mm—akaa“ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D B Hon ble Shrl Justice I M Quddusu and Hon ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mlshra w Miscellaneous Appeal No.134 of 2004 Appellant Orienta! Insurance Company Ltd, versus Smt. Dhana Devi and others Respondents Present ShmV‘Inay Harlt Semor Advocate With Shrl Surya Kant MIShra and Shn Vlnod Deshmukh counsel for the appeHant Shn N R Jalswal counsel for respondent No 1 Shrl Atanu Ghosh counsel for respondents No 2 3 and 5 to 9 None for respond‘ent No 4 Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Miscellaneous Appeal No.135 of 2004 Appellant Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd. VGFSUS Respondents Smt. Sarla Singh and others Present: Shri Vinay Harit, Senior Advocate with Shri Surya Kant Mlshra and Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the appellant. Shri N.R.Jaiswal and Shri D.N.Prajapati, counsel sfor respondent No.2. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3, Shri Tarun Dansena, counsel for respondent No.4. None for respondent No.1. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Pass‘ea on 25m March, 201 1) Per I.M. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2 Miscellaneous Appeal No.1 34/2004 ‘2. Company Limited against the award dated 21-10—2003 passed by the 5m Additionai Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Surajpur, iDistrict Surguja in Claim Case No.52/2002. i i £3. Case ofthe claimants of Claim Case No.52/2002, according to ithem, is that on the date of accident, i.e., 6-3-2001‘ deceased fTgmsai was coming hom’e riding in a jeep bearing registration N0.UP 63 A 9563, being driven by Vijay Barman: The jeep was driven rashJy and negligently near Kalighat Temple, therefore, it met with an accident, in which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his person and died during treatment. The claimants, i.e., mother, father, brother, wife and children of the deceased preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. This appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Wt 4. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,24,000/— in favour of claimants No.1, 2 and 4 to 8, i.e., mother, father, wife‘ and children of the deceased. The non—claimant/insurance company ~ was ordered to pay the amount of compensation. Miscellaneous Appeal No.135/2004 5. This appeal has been preferred by the Oriental insurance Company Limited against the award dated 21—10—2003 passed by wx the 5th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Surajpur, District Surguja in Claim Case No.35/2002. - / , / / / 6. Case ofthe claimants of Claim Case No.35/2002, according to them, is that on the date of accident, i.e., 6-3—2001, deceased Vijay Kumar Barman was coming back his home from Kamalpur to Ambikapur riding in a jeep bearing registration No.UP 63 A 9563. Qn the way, at about 10:30 P.M., the jeep met with an accident near Kaiighat Temple on Ambikapur — Vishrampur main road, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injury on his head and died during treatment in Modern Medical institute, Raipur. The incident was a reported to the Police Station Jainagar. The claimants, i.e., wife and father of the deceased preferred an application under Section 166 of the {Act claim‘ing compensation of Rs.16,00,000/—. The said application for compensation was, later on, amended and made under Section 163A of the Act. 7. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,08,000/- in favour of the claimants. The non-claimant/insurance company was ordered to pay the amount of compensation. 8. Since, both the miscellaneous appeals relate to one and the. same accident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/insurance company has urged that Vijay Barman, the driver of the jeep was not having a valid and effective driving licence, ¢-\ as, on verification by the insurance company through its investigator, it has been found that the driving licence, said to have been issued by the licensing authority Varanasi in favour of Vijay Barman, has /"\\ 5 compensation is to be fixed by the Claims Tribunal on the basis of t‘he aforesaid issue and thereafter the Claims Tribunal will pass an appropriate order whether the compensation is payable by the insurance company or by the owner of the jeep. There shall be no order as to costs. Certified copy as early as possible. fi-~~vM l i sd/_ r l i i i 3:; ‘ I'M-Quddusi ‘ Judge tr I i Gopal