DivlsionBsnch IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BJl.ASPUR M.A.WHo.-^^f^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ APPELLANT •9 THE ORIENTALINSURANCECOMPANY, BRANCH QFFICE MANENDRAGARH ROAD, AMBIKAPUR, DISTRICT - SARGUJA (C.G) Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:- tf ift- '^•"' <.<• AA! ^®lfel" \.i l^ •rt ':''l.''-*-i; ,^J^- SMT. HEERADEYl^LpHAR.W/p^LATE^ SHRI MATiGAL SINGH LOHAR, AGE 45 YRS. ' :,':, . ^ :• . '- 1/ • 1 • .: ' °.^^^^ DEEI»AK''KUMARYISHWAKARMA,S/O; LATE SHRI MANGAL SINGH LOHAR, AGE24YRS.: ": . . :-; .'.' :•: :^,';':' JCUMARI JYOTI VISHWAKARMA D/0 LATE SHRI MANGAL SINGH liOHAtl, AGE.ABOIIT22VRS. . l'': .; ;:-.1 ^.--^KUMARI AARTI VISHWAKARMA D/0 LATE SHRI MANGALSINGH LOHAR, AGEABOUT18YRS. DEEPESH KUMARVISHWAKARMAS/0 LATE SHRI MANGAL SrNGH LOHAR, AGEABOUT14YRS. . ALL MINORS THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. HEERADEVI LOHAR, ALL RESIDENT OF D.C. ROAD AMBIKAPUR, THANA & TAHSIt - AMBIKAPUR, DISTBICT- SARGUJA(C.&) . :";.: • ; :": :^: :, RESPQNDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS:- ^ 6. SARVDEOYADAV S/0 ALGU VADAVAGE 40YRS., RESIDENT VILLAtGE JAGDISHPUR, THANA THETHNA, DtSTRICT - BALIA(tJ.P.), ^RESENT RESIDENT - CHARGHA^ COIjIiQRfV, QUARTERNUMBEX 8-1fl6 ^BA3S|A- CHARCHA,BAlKUNTHPUR,DrSTRICW- KOREA:(G.(i.): •.;::;:1',',:; 1.'';: •.:::.;^t^: ?..a. iRI \.! ^- K ..2.. . , : : • . l'j ,•.';..'. ^:1 f^7.;/ NEHARU' YADAV S/0;'RA.MCBAM}ltjA., YADAV, AGE 28 YRS., RES1»ENT OF KACHHAR, THANA DHOUftPUR, PRESENT ADDRESS - PANCHSHIL HOTEL, AMBIKAPUR, DISTRFC'T< - :SARGUJA(C.G.) • I : - . ,:,.,,,:'.: j,, APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFMOTOR VEHICI.E.AGT 1988 r-"^ * Ti.T/^-r-T^ ^4 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDU8I & HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MI8HRA, JJ, M.AfCl. No. 1133 of 2008 Vs. MISC. APPBAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VBHICLES ACT, 1988 APPEARAMCE: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the appeBants. Mr. Pramod Verma, Sr. Advocate wifh Mr. Raghavendra Venaa and Miss Neha Verma, counsel for respondcnts 1 to 5. ORDER (ORAL1 (01.03.2011) Per I.M. QUDDU8I. J, 1. 2. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insurance Coaipany svgsaast the impugned award dated 30.04.2008 passed by the leamed Motor Accident CJaims Tnbunal, Sax^uja (Ainbikapur) ia claim. case no.45/2007 chaUengiag the quantum. fixed by the Tribuiial. Brief facts of the case according to the version of clauaaats are that deceased Mangal Singh was working as Sub- Engineer in Rural Enguieering Service, Aiabikapur. Ou 11.4.2007 white he was going on duty to Lundra by driving Motorcycle bearing Regn.no.C,.G.015/C-9562, on the way, near village Bhakura one Tractor Trolly bearing No. U.P.060/F-2685, which was beiug driven by non-applicant no.2 Nehru Yadav ia a rash and negl^ent manner dashed the said inotoroycle 6x>va. back side, as a result of which Mangal Singh fell down and the wheel of the Tractor-TToUy APPELLANT8 The Oriental Insuraace Coiapauy Ltd RE8PONDBNTS Smt Heeradevi Lohar and others "t 3. 4. 6. ran over lum. He received fatal injuries aad died on fhe spot At fhe tiine of accident, he was aged about 50 years and was drawiug a monthty salaiy of Rs.17,539/-. The clauuants beiag legal representatives have naade claun u/s 166 ofthe M.V. Act to the tune ofRs.37,89,332/- on various heads for the death of fhe deceased. Leamed Clanas Tribunalon a close scrutiay ofevidence and material pn reconi heM that the ofiFending Tractor No.U.P.60- f . • • . • • • • F/2685 yhich was beiag driven by respondent no.l in a rash and nes ^ent niauner dashed the motorcycle of the deceased as a resujlt ofwhichhe died aud It is not proved fhat fhe said Tractor t^ecs breached the conditions of the insurance policy. It has a^arded a sum of Rs.19,57,200/- as coiapensation which fUe claunants are eutitled to receivc fi-oia the non- appUcaalts. Leamed •ouusel for the appeUant has subimtted that it is a case ofh^t aud run and the amount awarded by fhe Tnbunal is exorbitont. 5. Wc have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties at length and also periised the records of the Tribunal as well as fhe evidence adduced aad the docuinents placed on reeord. First of all, we have perused the iasuraace poUcy of fhe Tractor, by which, Rs.235.50 liave been coUected aa premiuni (for aay extra loadiag.) Therefore, a question has arisen as to how fhis extra loadlng fe payable oa the Tractor itself. FurUier a fiaal report u/ s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by fhe Police after conclusion of the iavestigation m which it has been nientioned ttiat the accident was conunitted by fhe .,'^s""sw%.. ^^ ,_^-—;^,^.\ '^^ '%>. •{BKKiiSSi' !J.. /^7. driver of the Tractor with Tractor but ao mention about the TroUy Iias been made therein. The eye witncss of fhe incident namefy Anil Kuiuar (A.W.2) has stated ia his evidence that it was his impression Ihat tfae wheel of the Trolty crushed the body of thc deceased but no definite evidence has been gwen about the saiae. It is not known as to whether the TroUy was registered or not. It seenis fhat fhe Tribunal has not conducted any enquay on these aspects. 7. It has been provided in Rule 226 of C.G. Motor Vchicles Rules, 1994 fhat the Claims Tribunal shaU obtaia whatever in&rmation and documents which may be found nccessary fix>Bi fhe police, inedical aad other authorities and proceed to award the claun whefhcr the parties who were.:given aoticc, appear or not, on the Stppow.ted date. Further we caiinot igaore the proviswns ofsectionl68 offhe MotorVeIuctes Act, 1988 which pravides that on receipt of an appUcation for coinpensation xaade u/s 166, the Claims Tribunal shallafter giving fhe pardes (iacluding fhe iastirer) aa opportuiiity of being tieard, hold an iaquuy iato fhe clann and subject to / the provisions of section 162 may niake aa award determuiiag fhe aiaount ofcompensation which appears to it to be jusfc Homever, fhe Tribi.inal has not conducted any enquiry ia tfae inaniier indicated above. 8. The Tribunal has not paid attention towards the above inentioned facts aad circitmstances. Therefore, we are offhe opiniou fhat the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the TribunaL ^. £"K:.-.;-i»ife 1 K •sww,;Sgft; 1 tj :/ /t "^xy "T;' :^t '/^ 9. Hence, we allow fhis appeal ia part; set aside fhe award dated 30.04.2008 and reinit fhe matter back to the Tribunal fbr decision afresh. On fhe poiats inentioned above, fhe Tnbiuial shaU conduct enquuy under rule 226 ofC.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 aad if necessaiy shall sunuaon the records or the witoesses to find out fhe truth. Furfher fhe parties shaU be allowed to amend fhe pleadiags, adduce furfhcr evidence, if any, file the documents or get the docuinente verified etc., and thereater the Tribunal shaU decide fhe claim petition afresh at the earlicst ia light ofthe obseryations made hereia above. The parties shafl appear before the Tribunfll on 06"' ofAnrU. 2011 and the Tribimal shatl make endeavor to deeide the claim. petition and xaake award as earfy as possibte preferable wifhiii a period of six nionfhs. The records of the Tribunal shatl be scnt back without further delay. 10. The amoiint deposited by tfae Insurance Coiapany shall not be disbursed and shall remaia ia fixed deposit tffl fh.e disposal of the c]aun petition. Hcwevcr, whatcver ainoi.m.t has already been paid to the claimant fhat shaM not be recovered froin the claimaats tffl the award is made al&iesh. Sd/- 1-M.Quddusi Judge Prashant Kumar Mis Judge Rao