.MM^^S.SWWW^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILA8PUR DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDUSI 8s HON»BLEN.K. AGARWAL, JJ M.A No. 935 of2006 Vs. MISCBLLANEOUS APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT, 1988 APPEARANCE: Mr. Rahul Mishra, coiuisel for fhe appellants. Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pragya Siagh, counsel for respondent 3. APPELLANTS 1 Siut, Geeta Devi, widow of late Vijay Das, aged about 30 years, 2 Kuniari Kajal, D/o Late Vijay Das, aged about 10 years, 3 Paakaj Kuraar Das, s/o Late Vijay Das, aged about 8 years 4 Pawaa Kiimar s/o Late Vijay Das, aged about 6 years 5 Sagar Kuiaar, s/o Late Vijay Das, aged about 4 years AU are R/o Village RaDiaaujgaoj, Tahsil Pal, Distt. Surguja (C.G) through Miaor, appellaiits 2 to 5 Natural guardiani Mofher appeUaat no. 1 Siat. Geeta Devi. RB8PONDENTS 1. Viaod Gupta, owner of Vehicle Muii Bus NO.C.G.15-Z-A/0772, R/o ViUage Balraaipur, P.S, Bakampur, Distt. Surguja (C.G). 2. Diaesh Kashyap, s/p Vishwnafh Kashyap, aged about 22 years, Occupation Driver, R/o viUage Ramaiiujgaaj, P.S. Ramanujgaaj, Distt. Surguja (C.G). 3. United Insiiraace Conipaay Lmuted, Office Near Rain Mandir Ambikapur, Through : Maiiager United Insurance Co. Ltd. '%-^..Ji.^ ^ss^-s^^^ Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J. ORDBR (ORAL) (11.11.2010) 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants agam.st fhe ioipugned award dated 26.04.2006 passed by fhe First Additioual Motor Accident Clainis Tribunal, Ramaaujgaaj, ia Claim Case No.2/2003. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.12.2002 at 5.15 p.m., deceased Vijay Das was traveUng ia Miai Bus bearing Regn. No.lS-Z.A/0772. He was goiag to Gaaesh Mod from Raaiaaujgaaj on his professional work. On fhe way, sorue unkaown Naxalites stopped fh.e said Bus at Piparahi to travel ia fhe said Bus ia which fhe PoUce of Chando poUce station was already traveling and all of a sudden, exchaage of firing took place befrween the Naxalites aad the poUce party ia which he died. He was doiag leafher busiciess aad was earmng Rs.40,000/- per aanuni. 3. It is aUeged by rcspondents 1 & 3 fbiat Pollce gave iaistructions to aU fhe passengers to hide aad sleep under fhe bus seats aad all the passengers followed the poUce instructions but deceased Vijay Das raised his head to watch fhe iacident through wiadowpaaes and thus he received a buUet iajuiy in fhe NaxaUte attack. The Insurance Corapaay has taken fuilher stand that fhe said vehicle was used ia breach of tenas of flie poUcy; the driver was not haviag valid and drivuig license aad fhe State was also not impleaded as a necessary party, fherefore, fhe claun made by respondents be rejected. te^. ^ ^-.:iKy-^% i ~7/ •^ ^j 04. The leamed claims Tribunal held thiat deceased Vijay Das has died on 21.12.2002 whUe he was traveling ia fhe Mini Bus bearing Regn.No.l5-Z.A/0772 aad it is not proved fhat driver Diaesh Kashyap was not haviag valid aad effective driviag license at fhe time of mcident and fhereby violated fhe conditions of fhe iasurance policy. The leamed claims Tribunal further opmed fhat fhe deceased has died on account of his own act of negUgence and fhere is no ignoi^nce aad negligence on fhe part of the owner of fhe Mmi Bus aad fherefore rejected fhe clamx inade by fhe clainiaats. 05. From perusal of fhe records of fhe Tribunal, it appears that it was aa accidental murder of fhe deceased committed by fhe Naxalites when fhey suddenly attacked fhe poUce party iu fhe staadiag Bus aad there was exchaage of fire between tlie PoHce an.d Naxalltes. The clami petition has been rejected on fhe ground that fhe poUce directed fhe passengers to hide fheinselves under fhe seat but it caanot be said that fhe deceased had received guii shot iajury raerely for non-conipliaace of tiie poHce directions. The question reiaains that why a person would go to die ia the cii'cuiastances when there was NaxaUte attack on a staaduig Bus. Therefore, th.e findiags of fhe Tribunal that fhie deceased died because of his negligence is not sustaiaable. In view of the above, we are of fhe firai opiaion fhat it is an. accidental death when flie deceased was fa-aveluig ia fhe said Bus which suddenly faced the NaxaUte attack aad it cannot be said fhat the deceased was negligent. There may be a disturbed position ia fhe Bus as fhe poUce was countering ;!' '^:''y^2 ^h. .' ^ '% /<%1 fhe attack froBi iaside fhe bus aaiong fhe passengers. The clau3iaats have also not iaipleaded ftie State as party respondent fhough fhere is a law aad order problem ia which fhe deceased lost his Ufe. 06. In view of fhe above, we allow this appeal in part, set aside fhe impugned award dated 26.04.2006 and remit the matter back to the Claims Tnbunal for assessiaent ofcoiapensation. The Tribunal shall provide opportunity to fhe parties to adduce additional evidence or aaiend fhe pleadiags or file fhe documLents. The Tribunal shall restore fhe claim and shall decide fhe same afresh as early as possible ia light of fhe observations inade hereiaabove. The records of the Tribunal shaU be sent back forfhwith. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Rao