IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF'CHHATISGARH / V 0 HA AT‘BILAspUR . V L H CwM $9 H uv < H l. ‘Resham Lal S/o Gaj‘anand ‘ Aged about 4O years, Caste Kaiwat, Occupation—Driver, r R/oKaiwatpara, Raigarh Dist.Rajgarh (Chhattisgarh) . Ramesh Prasad Gupta, S/o ’ Not known, aged about 45 Years, Vehicle Owner, Jai Balaji Travels, Tapkara, . Dist.Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS " . z \aJM 1.*Sumitr_a', xw/o Late Bhondu ' * Wu Ram, aged about 48 years, _ ’ ‘R/o Tehsil Village—Naya Gharghoda, Rampur', District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 2. United Ihdia Insurance Co.Ltd. L I VT ough Branch Manager, V Oppt Gopi Talkies Rajgarh (CG) V Claim Valued at RS759, 100// Awérllkdmpensation-Rs. 60000// t .‘ = ' APPEAL v vNDER SECTION ‘ 173' 1988 OF MOTOR VEHICLEs»AéT 7 / : j ‘ ' HIGH COUR+ OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON’BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & ‘1 HON’BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M.A. N0. 506/2002 Agpellants Resham Lal and another Driver Vs Respondents Sumitra and another Claimant - Present: Mr. Amit Verma, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Amit Sharma, counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. HB AgrawaL Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ORDER (Oral) (8th November, 201 1) Per I.M. Quddusi J ' 01) This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/driver & owner against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (in short “the Tribunal”) dated 13.3.2002 passed in Claim Case No.15/99 whereby liability has been fastened upon the appellants/driver & owner, exonerating the insurance company. 02) Brief facts of the case are that on 13.1.1999 Bhonduram was going to his Village -— Naya Rampur from Gharghoda market by bicycle. At that time, appellant No.1 by driving the bus bearing registration No. MP 26C/5757 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) rashly‘and negligently dashed the bicycle of Bhonduram, as a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. However, after primary treatment, while he was being takento KG Hospital, Raigarh, he died on the way. At the relevant time, the offending vehicle was owned by appellant No.2 and insured with respondent No.2. O3) At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 50 years and he was Kotwar of the village. Therefore, the claimant, who is widow of the deceased, being his legal heir filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act, 1988”) for a total compensation of 7,59,100/— under various heads. O4) 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.60,000/— in favour of the claimant, fastening the liability, jointly and severally, upon the appellants/driver and owner of the offending vehicle, exonerating respondent No.2/insurance company. 05) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. O6) Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the burden of proof was on the insurance company to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, but only on the basis of search report of an advocate, the insurance company has produced the evidence of its Branch Manager in this regard. 07) Sections 168 and 169 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the CG Motor Vehicles Rules, 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 evidence adduced by the parties. lt should have conducted an enquiry to find out the truth so that liability could be properly ascertained. 08) Admittedly, the burden of proof was on the insurance company to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and therefore, the insurance company should ' have called the officials of the concerned RTO to discharge 09) the Tribunal to decide the claim case afresh, in the light of observations made above. 10) parties shaii be allowed to adduce further ments veri evidence, file the award shall be made afresh. lied etc. and thereafter, & J r i r 7‘ l '1 Judge ‘ “ / 11) 201 Parties 1. shall appear before the Tribunal on 14*” December, 12) LCR shall be sent back to the 13) No order as to costs. Tribunal without further delay. 14) Certified copy as per rules. semi—e V: 351M. Quddusi ‘ sly» ‘