lim INTHE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL [C] N0. ^^ /2011 .^*'-': MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLBS ACT, 1988 IPPELLANT INSURER ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office: ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra- Kurla, Complex, Mumbai, 4000 51, through its Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance C^mpany Limited Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, 3rd Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RBSPONDENTS :- ;-. Smt. Kamla Bai Wd/o Suraj Singh DRIVER ^ Deewan, aged about 47 years, 2^-Ku. Hemlata Deewan D/o Suraj Singh Deewan, aged about 22 years, .^~S-. ^.^"' Punit Deewan, S/o Suraj Singh Deewan, aged about 20 years, Ku. Puja Deewan D/o Suraj Singh Deewan, aged about 14 years, Respondent No.4 being minor represented through mother Smt. Kamla Bai Deewan respondent No. 1 All R/o Sanjay Nagar, behind Keshari Lassi Rajeev Pandey Ward Tikrapara Raipur, District - Raipur Umesh- Prasad Yadav S/o Chandrashekhar Prasad R/o Bhanpuri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) presently R/o Through Smt. Hemlata Arora W/o Premnath Arora, R/o Station Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Hemlata Arora W/o Premnath Arora, R/o Station Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). - ^ fe APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 9,12,000/- COURT FEE Rs. 15/^ HIGH^OURT OF CHHATTI8GARH. BILA8PUR APPELLANTte RESPONDENT8: DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI 85 Hoa'ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M. A (C1 No.493/2011 ICICI Loinbard General Insuraace Co. Ltd Vs. Sint. Kamla Bai and others MI8C. APPEAL UNDER SECriON 173. OF THB MOTOR yEHICLES ACT,1988 Appearance: Mr. Saurabh Sharuia, couasel for the appeBaat. None for the respondent. ORALORDBR (08.08.2011) Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J. 1. List is beiag revised. Case is agaiu caUed out. No one appears for fhe icspondents even when the inatter is caUed twice. However, Mr. Saurabh Shanna, couiisel for the uisurance Coinpany is preseat. Therefore, we proceed exparte agam.st fhe respondents. 2. Heard leamed counsel for the appeUant. 3. This appeal bas been ffled by fhe Insurance Coinpany agauist fhe impugned award dated 13,12.2010 passed by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G) in Claim Case No.47/2009. 4. Brief facts of fhe case as per the version of the claimants are fhat on 09,01.2009 deceased Suraj Siagh, who was an Head Coastable, was controUin.g the traffic at a four road junction ia /S^4V%, •" !.;&. -r i 'i®8h,. g ""•"^1-!^ P" v / (V7 the night at about 22.40 hours. At that time, a Truck bearing Regn.No.04-ZC/4377 which was beiag driven by respondent uo.5 ia a rash and negligent miaruier dashed Suraj Siugh who was on duly, as a resiilt of which, Suraj Singh sustained grievous iajuries aad died ia fhe Ralpur Medical CoUege Hospital during fhe course oftreatment. At fhe time of accident, the deceased was aged about 48 years. He was working as Head Constable aad was drawing a inonthly salaiy of Rs. 17,000/-. The appeUaats beiag dependents/ legal representatives have ffled clami petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for fhe award of total conipensatioD. ofRs.35,10,000/- onvarious heads. The leamed Clauus Tribunal has held fhat ftie accident was caused by fhe ofFeD.diug vehicle due to rash and negUgent driviag of respondent No. 1, as a result of which, Suraj Singh died; the driver was holditig vaUd aud efFective driving licence to drive the ofFendiug vehicle aad that the claimauts are entitled to receive conipensation of Rs.9,12,000 fi-om. fhe nou- applicaate jointiy aad severaUy, The leamed clauas Tribunal, having regard to fhe facts situation aad material on recoid,has awarded a total coinpensation of Rs. 9,12,000/- which the claiinaats are entitled to receive finm. fhe'non-appUcauts jointly or severaUy. Leamed counsel for the appeUant has subniitted that one of fhe dependents of the deceased had got coinpassionate appoiatment aad this fact was not taken into consideration by fhe Tribunal. He has cited the case law laid dowu by the Hon'ble Apex Court in. Bhafcra Beeis SSew.vigement Board Vs. KesntaAggcirwal (Sndf <ind others reported in. 2008 11 SCC ^ 366. whereiu it has been heM. fhat the benefits received bv wav of coiupassionate appointuient and acconuiiodation ought to have been takea into consideration while detenniuiag the just coinpensataon. 8. Therefore, it is a fit case to remit the laatter back to tfae Tribimal for recalculation of fhe coinpensation taking into consideration the case law laid down by Honlale the Apex Court iu case of Bhakra Beas ManageTnent Board. (supra). Accordiagly, we aUow the appeal iu part and reinit fhe niatter back to the Tribiuial for decision afiTesh ia the light of observations m.ade herein. above. 9. Regarding quaatuni, the parties shall be allowed to amend fhe pleadin.gs, adduce further evidence, ffle docuinents or get the documents verified ete., and tiiereaftier the Tribunal shaU inake the award afiresh at fhe earUest. The records of fhe Tribtm.al shaU be sent back without furfher delay. 10. The amount which has already been deposited by fhe appeUaat shaU reinain ia fixed deposit iu aay Nationalized Bank for a period of one year extendable fix>iu tune to time tiU the fresh decision fe taken by the Tribunal. 11. In the result, fhe appeal is aUowed iu part. No order as to cost(s). ^.^'' '', ,^' ^-^ ^^ ' ^^ 6^a Rao