Oj^E-B^-/^ Mt." - °-npt<csy»'\ ,3).^'' i "yiy^ ^^^^•- Distt. Raipur [C.G.] ys '^•Cb-^^r W/o Late Madan lal, 2i ;ed about 26 years, Balod Gahan, Thana & Tah. Gumr Ltd.Zonal office-In front of Project Auto Mobile,J.E.Road, Bhil'at; Distt. Durg [C.G.J [F.T.C] Baic versus Nihar Arising out of judgement-dated 29.04.09, in Claim Case no. Ravishankar Say Adl. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Durg [C.G.] between Smt; Bhanu Bai snd others .T, . -^- ^ H!GHCOURT OF CHKATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justjce IJVI.^iuddu^i and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellant nfliscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.1031 of 2009 Nitiar Prusty versus Respondents Smt. Bhanu Bai and others Present: Shri S.K.Guha, counsel for the appellant. Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.5. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10thJanuary, 2011) Perl.M. Quddusi, J.; Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed by the owner of Maruti Alto Car challenging the award dated 29-4-2009 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Balod, District Durg in Claim Case No.93/08. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on the date of accident, i.e., 12-11-2008, at about 9:30 A.M., one Madanlal was cutting grass by the side of the road on National Highway Np.43 near Village Balodgahan. At that time, Maruti Alto Car No.CG 04-H/1692, coming from Dhamtari, which was being driven rashly and negligently, dashed Madanlal. Madanlal suffered serious injuries on his person in the accident and died on the spot. The claimants, i.e., wife and sons of the deceased Madanlal preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.16,60,000/-. 4 . The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,45,528/- to the claimants holding liability on the owner of the Maruti Alto Car to satisfy the award, exonerating the insurer of the car from the said liability. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal has framed an issue whether the Maruti A!to Car was insured on the date of accident. The insurance company has been exonerated on the ground that the copy of the insurance policy filed before the Claims Tribunal did not contain seal of any branch of the insurance company and, therefore, it is not proved that the car was insured. The Claims Tribunal has wrongly shifted the burden of proof upon the claimants. It was the burden of the insurance company to prove that the policy was fake or no such policy was issued by it for the car. Denial in the written statement only will not prove that the insurance policy was fake. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/owner has submitted that the owner of the car has received amount of damages under the same policy from the insurance company. In this regard, Annexure A-4 has also been filed before this,.Gourt. However, at this stage, we are 'not considering this as the matter requires reconsideration by the Claims Tribunal. 7. Therefore, we set aside the impugned award, allow the miscellaneous appeal in part and remit the matter back to the Claims /y^. f't^St ije®i^swti' ^s^s^^^^ s ''vsy^ ''S-^s^'. Gopal Tribunal for dedsion afresh. The parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence, file additional documents or get the documents verified and thereafter decision shall be taken afresh. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 22-2- 2011. There shall be no order as to costs. SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge sl"f-..