—3- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH-COURT OP CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR ip meT^ MJl.[C] 1^3 /2011 [D.B.] APPELLANTS: CLAIMANT ,-;' s\\ ^''.:. ^L£- 7^^^ 1. 2. 1^' .^1 KULESHWAR^BAI AGE: 44, Wd./O: LATE SHRI. JAWAHARLAEVERMA, KU. DURGA BAI, AGE:17, D/0: LATE. JAWAHAR LAL VERMA, THROUGH: HER MOTHER KULESHWARI BAI R/0: VILLAGE: TOR, P.0. BARBANDA, P.S. DHARSIVA, DISTRICT: RAIPUR (C.G.) v/s APPEAI. U/S 173 MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR ENHANCEMENT OF THE AWARD VALUED AT Rs. 9.60.000/- ^BSPONDENTS: 1. SUMITRA BAI Wd./O: POSHAN LAL VERMA, R/0: VILLAGE: TOR, P.0. BARBANDA, P.S. DHARSIYA,DISTRICT:RAIPUR(C.G.) T 2. RELDWCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. Ltd. THROUGH: LEGAL MANAGER, IVTH FLOOR, RAVI BHAVAN, JAI STAMBH CHOWK, RAIPUR (C.G.) ...... INSURER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri t.M. Qudduai, J. & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. M.A.fClNo. 143 of 2011 APPELLANTS Kuleshwar Bai and another. Versus RESPONDENTS Sumitra Bai and another. Shri AmjyakantTwari, counset for the appetlante. Shri Sourabh Sharma and Shri A.L. Singroul, counsel for respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (22/03/2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by I. M. Quddusi. J. This appeal has been fited against the impugned order dated 02/11/2010 passed by the Xth Addttjonal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 55/2010 dismissingtie clahn petition as not maintainable underSection 163-A ofthe l^otor Vehicles Act. (2) Brid' facts of the case, as narrated in the claim petitjon. are that on 9/11/2007 deceased Jitendra Verma along wtth his father late Jawarhar Lal Verma and his brother Poshan Lal Verma were coming in Motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 04/CU/1476 and when fliey reached near Shjvaji Park Saddu, their mcrtorcycle was dashect by unknown vehicle which was driven rashly and negligently as a result of which they received grievous injuries. Jawarhar Lal Verma died on the spot. During treatment Jitendra Verma died and Poshan Lal Vewna also djed during freatment in Mekahara Hospital. Claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.9,60,000/-. (3) The deceased was a pillion-rider. Under tiie insfrucUon of Insurance Regulatory and Devdopment Authortty (IRDA), ttie risk of ^^^^ '^"^^ /'^"^ j ^ -..^^ ^s^ ^&^ -•2-— pillion-rider is covered ifthe policy is package policy which is alsp called comprehensive policy. (4) Since the policy is not available on reeord, vro are of the opinion that before dismissing the award the Cteims Tribunal should have conducted an enquiry as provided in Section 168 of Moter Vehteles Aet and Rute 226 of C.G. Motor Vehides Rules, 1994, but that has not bewn done, therefore ttie matter requires reconsideration at flw end of ttie Tribunal. (5) Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehictes Act.1988 (for short 'the Act') provides that an application for compensation arising out of an acddent ofthe nature specified in sub-section (1) of seclion 165 may be made by the persons mentioned therein and Section 168 provides ttiat on receipt of an application for compensation made under Sectton 166. the Claims Tribunal shall, after givlng notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and. subject to the provislons of Section 162 may make an award determining ttie amount of compensation which appears it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whfom eompensation shall be paid and tn making ttie award the Claims Tribunal shall specMy the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be. (6) Rute 226 of the Motor Vehicte Rules. 1994 (for short the Rutes') provides for obtaining of information and (tocuments necessary for awarding compensation under Section 40. It specificalty provides that Uie Claims Tritxinal shall obtaln whatever informaUon and documente which may be found necessary from the Police, Medical and other •'"'"^ ^-•^, '••^ -'K ^:y/ •^^%^:?-' ..fci ^^ ^^.^ 'i;^ A^- -3 authorities and proceed to award the daim whether the parfles who were given notice, appear or not. on Uie appointed date. (7) In view of the above, we allow this appeal in pait, set-aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Claims Trtbunal to decklethe claim petitfon afresh. (8) Needless to mention that white deciding the claim petition afresh the (^irties shall be allowed to fite or amend the pteadings, addyce further evidence, flle documents or to get the documents verffled ete. and thereafter claim petitlon shall be decided. (9) The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 19/04^011. (1 Q) Lower Court Record be sent back without further delay. (11) No order as to costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^y<r