IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEALICl No. M6 3- /2011. APPELLANT (INSURBR N.A.-2) THE NEW INDIA ASSU. CO. LTD, Branch Office Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RBSPONDENTS (APPLICANTS) :1. 2. 3. Pumima Bai Satnami, W/o. late Shri Narantak Satnami, aged 22 years, Kavit Ram Satnami, S/o. late Bhondu Ram, aged 55 years, Neerabai, W/o. Kavitram Satnami aged 53 years "^^fcfl^""^ All Resident of Baijnath Khapri, ^n-3<;".; " '...^—:'T""""~~ Police Station and Tahsil Palari, ^- -"f^^1' District Raipur (C-G-) NON-APPLICANT N0.1 4. Motilal Teharvansh, aged about 58 years, S/o. Gajanand Teharvansh, Resident of Baijnath Khapri, Police Station and Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTIONJ.73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT 1988 » ^^astk] ^i^1''' ^ % ~~ ^ ../ ff ^ i'fS'y^ The New !ndia Assuraace Co. Ltd. Puruima Bai Satuami aad ofhers Mr, Maha\riT Bhataasar, Counsel for the appeUant. Mr. Anil Siagh Rajput, counsel for respondent. No.4. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Coinpany against flie im.pugned award dated 27.11.2010 passed by fhe II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tnbuaal, Baloda Bazar District Raipur (C.G) in Claim Case No.70/2009 fastenin^ Uability upon it to pay a coiupensation to the claim.ants. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of the claiinants are tliat on 03.04.2009 deceased Narantalc alongn-ifh otliers were retuming by Tractor beariag Regn.No.C.G.04-D/7058 and TroUey bearing Regn.No.C.G.04D-7062 after loading fhe TroUey wifh sand. Narantak was drivuig tlie Tractor Trolley and at about 6.00 p.ia. when fhe Tractor TroUev reached at Khaira Nala near culvert, due to rash and negligent driviag, it feU down. from. fhe culvert and Uimed turtte, as a resiilt of ^ ''?"*2'S?t»'s... -»• which, deceased Narantak canie luider fhe tractor and got crushed aad died. At fhe tiiae of acciclent, fhe deceased was aged about 23 years aad was eaming Rs.3000/ - per inonfh by driviag fhe Tractor. The claiiuauts beingjegal representatives/ dependents offtie deceased have filed claun petitiou u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for the award of a total coaipensation of Rs.11,25,000/- on various heads wifh 9% annual interest. The leamed Claixas Tribunal has held fhat when the Tractor TroUey was being drivea by the deceased Naraatak, it rn.et wifh accident ui wbich he died and fhe clamiauts are entiUed to get a total com.pensation of Rs.3,85,000/- from. fhe non- aoplicants ioiitflv or severallv, Leamed coiinsel for the appellant has urged fhat fhe Tractor was beiag used for non-agricultural purpose whereas the insurance policy was inade for agricultural purposes. We have nerused tlie records of fhe Tribiuial and found fhat tlie in.siTran.ee policy filed by the owner offhe vehicle i.e., Non- Applicant No.l was exhibited as N.A.4 whereas tlie Certilied Copy of fhe poUcy filed bv fhe ofiicial of fhe Insurance Coiapauy i.e., Non-applicant no.2 was exhibited as N.A.7, but ftie origmal policy filed by fhe o%~ner is quite different froia fhe certified copy of fhe insuraace policy filed by fhe ofBcial of tbe appellant Insurance Coinpany. Though m. .fhe certified copy it was nientioned that it was irusceUaneous and special type of vehicles but 'Policy B-Package' is not m.entioned therein. Fiuther in fhe certi&ed copy of the policy, under fhe headin^ 'limjtalion ds to use' it has been nientioned as "Use onlv for <^ agricultiu-al aad forestry purposes". But fhe original poUcy does not contaia fhese words. The RC book also shows tfaat iaitiaUy fhe Tractor was registered "for agncultural plirposes' on 6.11.2004, but Rs.120/- was deposited as tax on 09.11.2004 vide Receipt No.72/119934. Under Form-20 an endorseiaent has been inade in the RC to this effect. 6. Now the question has arisen as to whefher fhe policy purported to be on.ginal one filed by the owner non-appUcant no. 1 is fhe geniiine policy or fhe certified copy of the policy filed by fhe of&cial of tiie Insurance Coinpaiiy i.e., non- applicaat no.2 is fhe real policy, fhat has not been ascertaiaed bv the Tribunal. 7. Iftlie policy filed by the owner/non-applicant no.l is genuiae policy, ftien the Tractor could be used for non-agriciiltural piupose also. Therefore, ra. our opinion fhe matter requires reconsideration at fhe end of fhe Tribunal for fh.e detennuiation of fact. The Tribunal shaU conduct an enquiry as laid down in section 168, 169 and Rule 226 of the C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 and shaU decide fhe above point. 8. Hence, we allow fhis appeal in part and renut fhe ruatter back to the Tribunal for decision afi-esh ia fhe Ught of fhe observations ruade above. 9. Need less to iuenti.an that the parties shaU be aUowed to amend tlie pleadiags, adduce furtfier evidence, file the docuiaents or get the docuinents verified etc and fhereafter fhe decision shall be taken afresh at fhe eai'liest. The parties shail appear befoi-e fhe Tribunal on 21st October, 2011. The .--:•» Rao *' records of tlie Tribunal shaU be sent back without furfher delay. !n the resiilt, the appeal is allowed in part. No order as to cost{s). Sd/- I.M.Q.uddusl Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^E-