^T HIQH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinaie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dtiip RaosahebDeshmykh, ..I. I.A.iC.SNo.l 023 of 2007 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Bajaj Allianz General insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhavan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) versus 1. Ramashankar S/o Late Vishram Kurre, aged about 50 years; 2. Radha Bai W/o Ramashankar, aged about 48 years, Both R/o City Rambhata, Raigarh P.S. City Kofcwaii (Claimants) 3. Vinod Ekka S/o Jailal Ekka, Age 23 years, R/o Through Commissioner, Nagar Paiik Nigam, Raigarh (C.G.) (Driver) 4. Commissioner, Nagar Palik Nigam, Raigarh (C.G.) (Owner) Memprandym of Appeal under Section 173 of the MotorVehicles Act. 1988 as amended bv Act of 1994 Present : Shri Abhishek Sinha with Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counsei for the appellant. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. No one appears for respondents No. 1 & 2, though served. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23ra October, 2007) Shri Abhishek Sinha, iearned counsel for the appellant did not press on I.A. No. 1 which is an application for staying the effect and operation of the impugned award and its execution thereof. 2. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 is dismissed as not pressed. 2- 3. At the request of the tearned counsel for the parties, this appea! is being heard finaiiy and dispbsed of at Uie stage of admission. 4. Heard. 5. The appelianVlnsurance Company is aggrieved by an award dated 01-08-2007 passed by the IVth Additiona) Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raigarh (hereinaft&r referred to as "the MACT"), in Claim Case No. 2/2007, whereunder in a death case, the MACT awarded compensation of Rs.2,69,520/-. 6. Brief admitted facts in this appeal are that on 20.03.2007 at 11.30 A.M., the deceassd Praveen Kumar, agsd 22 years, was seated on a tanker and witnessing a cricket match. The said tanker was parked in Sanjay Maidan, Rambhata, Raigarh. The tanker was aitached to a tractor bearing registration No. C.G. 13-8127 which vyas owned by the Municipat Corporation, Raigarh and insured by the appellant/insurance company. Respondent No. 3 - Vinod Ekka, the driver of the tanker suddenly started the tanker, due to which Praveen Kumar fel! down and was crushed undemeath the tractor and died. 7. The appeilant/insurance company took a plea that arthough the fractor was insured by if the tanker was not. On 17.7.2007, the MACT closed the evidence of ciaimants and fixed the case for recording evidencs of the owner, driver and the insurance company on 30-07-2007. On 30-07-2007, counset for the insurance company prayed for an adjoumment for leading evidence. However, the MACT rejeeted the prayer and ctosed the case finaiiy on that date. By the impugned award, the MACT fastened the liability op the insurance company to pay compensation. 8. Shri Abhishek Sinha, iearned counsel for the appetianyinsurance company has contended that an opporturiity ought to havs been given So She insurance company to adducs svidence and to prove that the tanker, on which the deceased was admittediy seated at the time of accidenf, was not insured by it. Learned counse! for the appellant/insurance company prayed that e matter be remitted to the MACT with a direction for affording an opportunityto the appeSlant/insurance company to adduce evidence sotely to prove that the tanker was not insured by the ififfi 18 ^ appellant/insurance company at the time and date of the accident. No other ground was urged. 9. Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate did not oppose the above prayer and prayed that in the event of remit, respondsnts No. 3 and 4 be also given an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal to show that the tanker was insured bythe appellant/insurance company. 10. Having considersd the rivai submissions, i have perused the record of the MACT. In the interest of justice, it appears necessary to give an opportunity to the appellant/insurance company to tead evidence before the MACT to provs that on the date and time of accident, the tanker was not insured by it. 11. In the resuit, the appeal is altowed. The impugned award is set aside. The appeilant/insurance company and respondents No. 3 and 4 sha!! appear before the MACT on 27th November, 2007. The MACT, after issuance of notice to the claimants, shall fix a date for recording evidence of the appellant/insurance company on the sole point as to whether the iwC tanker was, insured by the appeliant/insurer at the time and date of accident. Upon such evidence being ied, respondents No. 3 and 4 shail aiso be given an opportunity to iead evidence in rebuttal to show that the tanker was so insured by the insurance company. It is made clear that only one opportunity shall be granted to the appellant/insurance company and thereafter to respondents No. 3 and 4. As regards the amount of compensation deposited by the appellant/insurance company before the MACT, the disbursement of the same, if not already done, shall remain stayed till final adjudication bv the MACT. 1 Sd/- I DUq) Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Kw