v^v"^}^ ^^•"" IN THE HIGH COURT OFjCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Apj)eal No. ^fi<f / 2006 DIvision Bencfj APPELLANT : ^The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Traiisport Nagar, Korba, fhrough its Divisional Maaager, Divisional Office, Bilaspur (C.G.). -Versus - <i^ A ,.^ RESPONDENT Claimant No. 1 RESPQDNENT Claimant No.2 RESPONDENT Claimafit No.3 RESPQNDENT Claimant No.4 RESONDENT Defendaat No. 1 RESPQDNENT Defendant No.2 ^L^ ^? ^ ^ 4 2. 3. ^' ^-^ < Ashiya Begum, 34 years, Wd/o Kaniruddia. Ajhar, 18 yeara, Ku. Rijwana, 14 years, Haider AU, 11 years, Respondents No. 2 to 4 son aiid Daughter of Late Kaairuddui Juidran, niuior, tiirough mofher Ashiya Beguni, Wd/o Kaianiddia Jindraii; atl pemiarient resident of Takhatpur, P.S. & TahsU- Takhatpm-, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). Shri Suresh Smgh, 40 years, S/o Shri Kashi Siagh, Occupation- Driver, Tmck No. M.P. 25-D-1224, Permanent residexit of Choukhda, P.S. Jameh, District- Rewa(M.P.) Present R/o Banki Mongra, Kimdipara, District- Korba (C.G.). Shri Viailesh Kumar Shanna, age not known, father's name not known^ owner ofvehicle No. M.P. 26-D-1224, R/o Baaki Mongra, Kundipara, District- Korba(C.G.). -f^-" RESPODNENT ^J7. The New India Insurance Compaay Ltd. Defendant No.4 Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) APPBAL UNDBR SBCTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR.G. IVIINHAJUDDIN. JJ. M.A@No. 99/2006 Appellant Defendant f Respondents Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Bilaspur (CG) Ashiya Begum and others Present: Mr. Vinay Pandey, counsel for the appellant/insurance company. Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Sourabh Sharma & Mr. Aditya Sharma, counsel for respondent No.7. ORDER (Oral) (25th August, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J This appeal has been filed tinder Section 173 of the Motor Vehides Act,, 1988 against the awardof the 8 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Bilaspur (in short 'the Tribunal) dated 23rd February, 2006 passed in Claim Case No.34/05 by the appellant/Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., fastening the tiability to pay the amount of compensation on the appellant/insurance company. 02) Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged only quantum part in this appeal, that too, to the extent of contributory negligence. Permission was granted to the appellant/insurance company under Section 170 ofthe Act, 1988 by the Tribunal. 03) Brief facts of the case are that deceased Qamruddin is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No. 2 to 4. The deceased along with his family/claimants, had gone to Katghora to attend the marriage ceremony of his relative. After leaving his family at Katghora in the house of his relative, while he was returning to Takhatpur by driving Commander Jeep bearing registration No. MP 26A-4081 on 27.4.2001 at about 10:45 pm with a moderate speed on the left side of the road, at that time a truck bearing registration No. MP 26D-1224 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") was going "^s i ^ ..// \>... "s^/f @ to Bilaspur in front of the jeep of the deceased. However, respondent No.5/the driver of the offending vehicle in order to give side to another truck coming from Bilaspur side all of a sudden applied brakes and since the indicator lights were not working, therefore,the deceased, who was following the offending vehicle, dashed the jeep against the offending vehicle, caused the accident and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was 34 years and was earning Rs.6300/- per month by working as driver of jeep and minibus. Therefore, the claimants, who are wife and children of the deceased, being his legal heirs filed a claim petition under Section, 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") for a total compensation of Rs. 13,50,0007- for the death of Qamruddin under various heads. 04) However, learned Tribunal, after close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.4,40,500/- in favour of respondent No.1 to 4/claimants, fastening the liability upon the appellant/insurance company, jointly and severally, along with driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 05) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. 06) Learned counsel for the appellanVinsurance company has contended that since the deceased was driver of the jeep, which dashed against the offending vehicle from behind, therefore, it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of driver of the jeep also, but the Tribunal has not framed any issue in this regard. 07) We have also found that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, an issue with regard to contributory negligence ought to have been framed by the Tribunal. However, the same has not been done. Therefore, in our opinion, it is a fit case to remit the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the question of quantum afresh after framing an additional issue regarding contributory negligence. 08) In the result, we allow this appeal in.part and set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the claims Tribunal to decide the case afresh after framing an additional issue with regard to contributory negligence. "'^ ^r. Needless to mention that the parties shall also be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents and get the documents verified etc. and thereafter, fresh findings shall be given by the Tribunal and award shall be passed afresh. 09) Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 29 September, 2011. 10) 11) 12) LCR shall be sent back to the Tribunal without further delay. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. IVIinhajuddiii Judge fy