^- PaqeNo:-© -^r w IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G.) MISCELLANEOIJS_APPEAL N0. -^0 ^ /2003 AIVEALUNDER^SECTION 173 OF M.V. ACT. 1988 (Claim in Appeal ValuedatRs.l.'33.000/-) A ELLANT/ ^(INSURER) r ' ', ?i;SPONDENT OWNER RBSPONDENT B/RIVER ^The Oriental InsuranceCo.Ltd., Through Sr.Divisional Manager. Divisional OSGce, Opp. HighCourt, Bilaspi.u- (C.G.) Vs. 'l. Ghasiaram, % S/0. Dewah Kalga, ' Aged about 55 years, ^ SESPONDENTS 'CLAIMANTS 2; Lachhiram, S/0. GhaSiararn kalga, Aged about 36 years, Both R/o. Chingari, P.S. Lailaunga, Tahsil Gharghoda, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. t^ Smt. Ramwati, W/o. Uniesh Ram Kanwar, Aged about 24 years, .<? .^•< >-^^ 4-ft ChainSmgh, i.'i''*' . /^ VI--S/0. LateUmeshRam Kanwar, -•* <- Aorfrl flhnnl-r^ mnnl-ha /•r%^ ^\^^y ^•'^v<^ ^^' &»v Aged about 2 months, Through Mofher/Natural Guardian Respondent No.3 Both R/o. Naktamarpara, Tilaedarha, P.S. Lailaunga, .Gharghoda, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) llie AppeUaat/lnsurer named above, hi.unbly begs to prefer tfais a^eal, aggrieyed by the Award dated 2|4-.10.2003, passed by leamed Ist Adfll. Motor Accident Claims TribT-u^l, Raigarh (C.G) (SriM.D. Mahilkar), inM.V.C.No. 39/1999, Sint.Ramwati & another versus Ghasiram & others. (Certified ^^ :1! ISS iSIr i^B •''f^ ^i^ r:?iK'^ + XI-HG—78 3i1^I ^il R-fid) 'gEnsn^iwqN? 'S^ •^fl^ld'M, »lfl'H<IS, [s|C1l+llj,< ^IWMI «>*llch 3ii^TTra^T (' TRITOT'(rt??i 3ni^i S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K 09.11.2009 Shri Suryakant Mishra, ShriAmit Sharma, Shri KN Nande,, Heard onM(0)P No.4^' delay in filing the appeal. On due consideration the| the submissions made by the for appellant has succeeded ir| this appeal. Accordingly M(Cj] caused in filing the appeal is hej With the consent of partie( Heard on admission. The appeal is admitted fo( Shri Amit Sharma takes 2 and Shri KN Nande takes notl Since the Counsel for the therefore, the appeal is heard The instant appeal appellant/insurance company passed by the Ist Additional (forshort'Tribunal') in claim ca^ AOyocate *l<ll<'t<il-< tlMvS <f fS!:S <.h<fK ^; aifim aii^fr Aaarwal for the appellant. Advoc^te for respondent No. 1 & 2. Advocat^ for respondent No. 3 & 4. .42)1/03, application for condonation of grounds raised in the application and c|3unsel, 1 am satisfied that the counsel explaining the delay caused in filing )P No. 421/03 is allowed and delay feby condoned. >, the matter is heard finally. fmally. rlotice orr behalf of respondent No. 1 & |ce on behalf of respondent No. 3 & 4. pai|lies are ready to argue the matter, I firtally. has been preferred by the ^igainst the award dated 24.1.2002, M((tor AccidentClaims Tribunal Raigarh ca^e No. 39/99 whereby and whereunder XJ-HG—7S 3??^T "sRT'f^tt^ iqTSD^IwqW '- --^. wqnr ^NI^I ^ST •^l'I<ld-LI, s!>ti1y<ic, f^Miyy ^.y^^......^A. ••^200 S s^v Tra^'- (lj°i^<<<i?) TOIIWflftaa^ '2t cafee the claimant's appliQation filec) allowed and an amount of percent per annum was awarcjled appellant jointly and severally. Shri Mishra, learne(l appellant/insurance company award has been passed by the| insurance in this regard. He vffi filed an application under Orde^ copy of policy and driving licen^e and the trial court fixed the again fixedon 11.10.01, but on| the Driver and Owner of the appellant's defence and evidence. He would further s|jbr liability can be fastened upon the above, the Tribunal has gro^s the appellant/insurance comparly. Per contra, Shri Amit counsel appearing for submitted that the award is welll 1 have heard the counsel the order impugned. +!'4ld4lTi 'RR^ff "^ 'f^si' <f^t-^T(. •^•sifimsn^r under Section 166 of MV Act was . 1,33,000/- alongwith interest @ 9 against the Driver/Owner and the counsel appearing for the \h/ould submit that in the instant case |Tribunal without their being a policy of |fould further submit that the appellant 11 Rule 12 of CPC for production of by Driver and Owner of the vehicle ca^e for its reply on 05.10.01, and then 122.10.01, without getting its reply from Ivehicle, the Tribunal has closed the proc^eded further for recording exparte s|jbmit that without proof of policy, no insurance company and in view of i^sly erred in passing the award against the S^arma and Shri KN Nande, learned respc|ndents supported the award and Ireasonedand deserves to be upheld. [appearing for the partiesand perused + 1 uf .^ "^?%s^E^'i"r XI-HE—78 31)^1 'RT l<-<i+ ^11 311^1 WIW Sahu '3'sr "4|<4|<r|'LI, yill^'is, fqcrtiyy *I!*ICTI a»*ii<:»» •w^iTra^ ('i'ifj'i^) ?^iiw ^ito snt^! ^ Undisputedly, tbe awarjJ has been passed against the insurance company without thei accident. The trial-court ought cbl^l<r1'41Tf 'RTO^Tf Tf f^st •(.f^l'^R ^aifimsn^r - being a copy of policy on the record covering .risk.-of-vehicle involv|ed in the accident for the date of lot tohave closed the defence of the appellanUinsuraneeiCompany 0(1 22.10.2001 without getting reply of applicatjori yncl^r'prder 11 Rule|12 of CPC from the respondent. [expressing any opinion on the merits lcourt, this case needs retrial. In view of above, without Wthe case, in the.gpinion ofthis] In the result, the appeal i4 allowed and order dated 24.10.2002 is set aside. The matter is remiflted back to the Tribunat to decide the same on its own merits in accor(pance with taw after givlng opportunity to the parties to produce releva|it documents with regard to policy of insurance and alsb to adduce e^idence in their support, and thereafter to pass the order within a peri receipt of a eopy of this order an twj of three months from the date of record. It is further directed that tljie amoUnt deposited by the appellant before the Tribunal be kept deplosited till the decision of this case, if not disbursed to the ctaimants. No order asto costs. Sd/- - N.K.Agrawal Judge