IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF.CH HATTLSGARH AT_ BILASPU R "^K' APPELLANT 'Non-Appellant No.31 Misc. Appeal (C) No. [[)\\ /2011 "The Orientallnsurance Co. Ltd., M.D.G.R. Road, Near Chowk, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, represented through Sr. Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Nayaganj, Itwari Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.). RE_SPONDENTS X cy °) -K ^y^y '^^ ^wy ^^^ '^^ y^ 2. ^^•v <^v" 3. 'Versus Smt. Kiran Tirkey, Wd/o late Bonifas Tirkey, aged about 43 years, Caste Uraon, r/o village Manora, Tahsil Manora, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.). Smt. Kurdulla, W/o Libin Ekka, aged about 50 years, Caste Uraon, r/o village Ekamba Bartoli, P.S. Dumri, Distt. Gumla (Jharkhand), Presently residing at A-2/Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Archana Tirkey, Minor, D/o late Bonifas Tirkey, aged about 15 years, Joni Tirkey, D/o late Bonifas Tirkey, aged about 12 years, Note: Respondents No.3 and 4 are fflinor and represented through their natural guardian and mother Smt. Kiran Tirkey, Wd/o late Shri Bonifas Tirkey, aged about 43 years, Cgste Uraon, r/o viUage Monora^; Tahsil Manora, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.). .Clajmants -,4 Santosh Chauhan, S/o Chintaram Chauhan, aged about 21 years, Occupation Driver, Caste Chikwa, At village Harradeepa, P.0. Asta, Tahsil Manora, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.). .Driver Smt. Susheela Kujur, W/o George Kujur, aged about 40 years, Caste Uraon, At village "Ajadha, P.0. Asta, Tahsil Manora, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.). .Qwner_Qf yehicle APPEAL UNDER SECTION'173 OF THE MOTOR VEHJCLES ACT.1988. AGAINST AWARD DATED 21.7.2011 PASSED IN MOTQR ACCIDENTAL CLAIM CASE C.T. N0. 03/2010 BY LEARNED MOTOR ACCIDENTAL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, JASHPUR (C.G.'l ^~ ^l, 1 ^ 1\ \)^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. M.A.rclNo.1011/2011 Appellant (Non-appellant No.3) Respondents Vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Raigarh (CG) Smt. Kiran Tirkey and others Present: Mr. Ratan Pusty, counsel for the appellant/insurance company. Mrs. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel forrespondent No. 1, 3 & 4. Mr. Sameer Kujur, counsel for respondent No.6. ORDER (Oral) (22nd November, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/insurance company against the award dated 21.7.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (in short "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No.03/10, insofar it relates to fastening of liability upon the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per averments made in the claim petition, are that on 26.5.2009 Bonifas Tirkey was going to Manora on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 14 B/4413 along with his sister-in-law (respondent No.2 herein). When they reached near Oredeeh nalla, respondent No.5 by driving vehicle Bolero bearing registration N0. CG 15 B-3478 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") in a rash artd negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of Bonifas Tirkey, as a result of which Bonifas sustained grievous injuries aftd sucCumbed to the same on the spot. Respondent No.2 also sustained grievous injuries in the said acciderit and she became permanently disabled. At the relevant ^esass!.^ f£w^.. '•d ^ ^?^.,. F. ^-^ ft ^ ..-,€" ^-I?5'"' ^-.. VI time, the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.6 and insured with the appellant/insurance company. 3. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 44 years old and working in Andhra Bank, Bhuwneshwar, as Security Guard and was getting salary of Rs.3500/- per month. The claimants (respondents No. 1, 3 & 4), who are widow and children of the deceased, were fully dependent upon him. Therefore.'they filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") before the Tribunal for a total compensation of Rs.18,74.295/- against the death of Bonifas Tirkey and for the injuries sustained by respoudent No.2 under various heads. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the LCR as also the impugned award. 5. Upon perusal of the LCR, we have found that on the dafe of accident, there was no insuranceof the vehicle and as such, the insurance company could not have been held liable to pay compensation. Though two insurance policies have been produced, but the first policy was effective for a period from 5.5.2008 to 4.5.2009 and the second one was effective for a period from 27.7,2009 to 26.7.2010. However, the date of accident is 26.5.2009 and as such, on the date of accident, there was no insurance of the vehicle. 6. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act and Rule 226 of the CG Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 provide that the Tribunal shall conduct an enquiry to determine the fact in respect of award of compensation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in treating the claim petition as a civil suit and deciding the same only on the basis of pleadings or the jevidence adduced by the parties. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter requires reconsideration affhe end of the Tribunal. Therefore, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the claims Tribunal to decide the case afresh after giving oppori:unity of hearing to the parties, in the light of the observatioqs made above. !:!! t:\l 8. Needless to mention that the pari:ies shall also be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the documents verified etc. and thereafter, fresh findings shall be given by the Tribunal and award shall be passed afresh, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. The Tribunal shall also conduct an enquiry into the claim for determining the liability and the just compensation. 9. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 5 January, 2012. 10. LCR shall be sent back to.the Tribunal without further delay. 11.The amount which is in deposit shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the appellant/insurance company. However, the amount, which has already been disbursed to the claimants, shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the Tribunal afresh. 12.Noorderastocosts. _ •13.Certified copy as per rules. SdJ- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^ ^"