' = ”1.. f ,. ." W . Misc. Appeal No. Branch Manager, United India‘ insurance Company Limitd Branch Ambikapur Distt. Surguja AN N0. 2 n :/fl Smt Savi'tri Devi wido of Suresh b f. Sandeep Yadav son of late Suresh 9‘ Kumar, aged 13 yea, Ku. Puja Yaav Do le urésh 6' . . w Kumar, aged aout 32 yeas $3. d / at S Kumar, aged ll ears. \/Roit Yadav sn of ‘ate Surh Kumar aged O9 years, Smt. Radha Devi widow of Shivrasad z/ aged 60 yea Respondent No. 2do 4 minr through guardian moiher Smt. Savitri Devi widow of suresh. All resident of Narth Chiiri Couiery' Police Station- chirimri Tahsil Manendra— garh, Dist, Korea (6.65.). \ m i o eeééégemm aiman2§_Ii2;;_§os‘}i 1’ ‘ }' 6 >_ §amt Shri Sant Genesh son of Shri ‘9 Mmkar-Sweeper, aged~about 25 years Vehicle owner and driver, P 0. Ek‘ta Nagar, Godaripara, Block No. l4, House No. 190, Post Godaripara Police Station Chirimiri . NQn-appliCant No. A. QEPEAL wear SECHON 73 'OF moTOR VEHECLES ACT loge. (Claim in appeal valued at Rs. 3,76,000/u only). ‘ . V a _ eirig . aggrieved . with n the award dated 33319-2003 / passed H 1 1N THE HONBLE HIGH §Uf§§01 CMTTISGARH AT BxLASPUR gpELLpNI N0N-APPLI CT / e VERSU S 4 1 ‘ a; 2., . rs y §V4.‘h e l es , 95- rs. p t o “ E / @ / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ' DB: HON’BLE LM. QUDDUSI 85 HON’BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ M. A No.73 OF 2004 APPELLANT Branch Manager, United India Ambikapur, Insurance Company Distt. Surguja Limited, (CG) Branch i Vs. I RESPONDENTS } l Smt. Savim' Devi and others l APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 APPEARANCE Mr. ‘H. B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocatc With Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (04.04.20 1 1) Per LM. QUDDUSI, J 1. List is being revised. Case is again called out. Counsel for the appellant is present but no one appears for the respondents even when the matter is called out in the second round. Therefore, we proceed ex-parte against the respondenta‘ 2. This appeal has been filed by the insurer against the impugned award dated 30.09.2003 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G) in Claim Case No. 14/ 2002 in so far as it relates to the liability imposed upon the appellant as well as quantum part. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.02.2062 deceased Suresh Knmar was traveling as pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Regn.No.C.G.16-1877 owned by non—applicant no.1 ‘ Sant Ganesh who was driving the said vehicle. They were gomg to Pandopara from Godripara. On the way nearMrW f/ér Chiri‘miri at Kalibadi Mandir, dus to rash and negligant driving of Sant Ganesh, the motorcycle fell into a pit and thoy fell down as a result of which both the driver and pillion rider sustained gn'evous injuries and the deceased died on 18.22002 in Regional Hospital, Kurasiya during the come of treatment. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 38 years. He was working as General Majdoor and was earning Rs.8000/- per month. Besides this, he was also getn‘ng bonus twice in a year. The claimants being dependents] legal representatives have nled c petition for the award of compensation to the tune of Rs.23,32,000— on various heads in lieu of death of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal has held that' motorcycle bearing Regn.No.C.G- 16/ 1877 met with accident in which Snresh Kumar died and the accident took place due to defective driving of non-applicant no.1. The Tribunal has awaided a total compensation of Rs. 3,76,000/—, which the clnts are entitled to receive from the appellant and respondent o.6 jointly or severally. 5. Admittedly, t is not disputed that the driver o the motorbike was having only a learner’s license on the date of accident. It is necessaiy for a learner o drive the vehicle in public place under the guidance and supervision ofa person having a valid and effective license with him. It is not known as to whether the deceased (pllion rider) was having a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident or not. The Claims Tribunal has not frd any ise in this regard. Further with regard to the quantum, it is the case of the appellant that claimant/widow of the deceased has got compassionate appointment due to death of her husband, but the Tribunal has not taken into consideration this fact while assessing compensation. a 6. In View of the above, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to remit the matter back to the Claims Tribunal to decide afresh in light of the above observations. laim / aima n i f t i ame su Sd/— ;- ‘ Sdl- V “ . ‘1.M.Quddusi ‘ ' JUdge / i Prashant Kumar Mishl‘a Judge ‘= Rao ‘ \