^' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT M.A.(C)No.- [)^Q] r^-- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BILASPUR C.G. ^ RESPONDENTS A 2-/ ^3.^ Vrs. SITA BAI WIDOW OF LATE KUMARDUTT KESHARWANI AGE ABOUT 48 YRS. GYANESH S/0 LATE KUMARDUTT KESHARWANI AGE ABOUT 27 YRS. AMITESH S/0 LATE KUMARDUTT KESHARWANI AGE ABOUT 26 YRS. ALL RESIDENT OF PADAWPARA, BASHIR R... >;u ......^Lo)..^//€;^. KHAN WARD, MUNGELI, TAH. MUNGELI, PTWS^he; *; 5i:i| .rf^..^,.^^~A^~^ DISTT.-BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) -yL^'Q--(3^—'4. LALIT KUMAR S/0 RAMESHWAR CHANDRAKAR AGE ABOUT 33 YRS, VEHICLE DRIVER- SWARAJ MAJDA N0.- C.G. 10A/5394, RESIDENT OF KUNDA, TAHSIL- PANDARIYA, DISTT.- KABIRDHAM '^ ^ SMT. MITHILESH W/0 ARJUNRAM CHANDRAKAR AGE ABOUT 36 YRS., OWNER OF VEHICLE SWARAJ MAJDA N0.- C.G. 10A/ 5394, RESIDENT OF MAHALI, TAHSIL- PANDARIYA, DISTT.- KABIRDHAM (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 f" k... ^. •"^, ..^. 1 I I c'<> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. Appellant Resoondents M.A.fclNo. 1120/2007 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sita Bai and others. Present: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the appellant/insurance company. Mr. AL Singroul, counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3. ORDER (Orall (22nd July, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellanVinsurance company against the award of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, Distt. BJIaspur (in shdrt "the Tribunar), dated 9.7.2007 passed in Claim Case No.36/06, insofar as it has fastened Jiability upon the appeliant/insurance company. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.1 1.2005 at about 4 pm Kumar Dutt Kesharwani, husband of' respondent No.1 & father of respondents No.2 & 3, was coming from Pouni school by driving the motorcycie Hero Honda on the left side of the main road. At that time, respondent No.4, who was coming from Mungeli, by driving Swaraj Majda No. CG 10-A/5394 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of Kumar Dutt Kesharwani from wrong side, as a resuit of which Kumar Dutt feti down from the motorcycle and sustained injuries on account of his right ieg, hand and hip bone being run over by the offending vehicie. However, during the course of treatment, he djed on 29.12.2005 at Mission Hospital, Mungeli. Report of the accident was lodged against respondent No.4 in Poiice Station ; Mungeli, whereupon offence was registered against hirn under Sections 279, 337 and 338 ofthe !PC. ?, 3. At the time of accident, the deceased was 52 years and he was working as Headmaster in Govt. School, Pouni and was drawing a salary of Rs.11,220/- per month, out of which he used to contribute Rs.9,000/- towards his famiiy. Respondents No. 4 is the driver and respondent No.5 js the owner of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the appeiiant at the relevant time. Therefore, with the aforesaid averments, respondents No. 1 to 3, being tegal heirs of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") before the Tribunal for a total compensation of Rs.23,25,000/- against the death of Kumar Dutt Kesharwani undervarious heads. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. 5. In fact» the offending vehicle was a goods carrying vehide, its insurance was also for the purpose of goods carryjng. But the Tribunal has held thatat the time of accident, the offending vehicle was empty and as such, the driver having a driving licence of LMV was having a vaiid and effective drivjng licence as the vehicle was not being used for commercial purposes at the time of accident. 6. However, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no opportunity has been given to the appellant to prove that the vehicle in question was empty or some material was being carried by it and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle was also not proved by the claimants. 7. in view of the above, in our opinion, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal. Therefore, we allow this appeal in part, set asjde the impugned award and remit the matter back to the claims Tribunaj to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, jn the iight of the observations made above. Needless to mention that the parties shall also be atlowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, fjle documents and get the documents verified etc. and thereafter, fresh findings shall be given by the Tribunai and award shail be passed afresh. The > Tribunal shad also conduct an enquiry into the claim for determining the just compensation. It is made clear that the amount deposited by the appellanVinsurance company shali be kept in a national bank in the form of fixed deposit for a period of one year and the same shall be subject to the decision to be tak'en afresh. 8. Partjes shalt appear before the Tribunai on 24 August, 2011. 9. LCR shall be sent back to the Tribunal without further delay. 10. No order as to costs. / 11. Certified copy as per ruies. | n Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge '</ ^