-fr-, :c- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (CVNo. 1288of2008 Appellant : BajajAllianz General tnsurance Company Limited, Branch Office Kanpur (UP) Registered offlce: GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada Pune (MS) 411006 Versus Respondents : 1. Ram Biias Bari S/o Ramji Bari, aged about 25 years, Permanent resident of Village Barcha, Barwatola, Tahsil Dudi, District Sonbhadra (UP) Present Business Viliage Dhondha, Tahsii Pratappur, District Surguja (CG)- Claimant 2. Shri Kanti Ram S/o Ramsundar, aged about 45 years, R/o village Chamki, Thana, Babhani, District Sonbhadra (UP)- Owner. 3. Ramjatan S/o Lulkar, aged about 30 years, R/6 viilage Chamki, Thana Babhani, District Sonbhadra (UP) -Driver. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 17^0FTHEJ/!QTQR_VEH.!CL.ES.ACT,1988 (SB: Hon'bleMr. N.K.Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri SS Rajput with Shri Anant Kumar Bajpai, Advocates for appellant. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukia with Shri Shreyas Thakur, Advocates for respondent No. 2 & 3. ORDER (Passed on 19th day ofApril, 2010) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated 15.07.2008, passed by the Additional Motor Acddents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Pratappur, District Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 73/2007, whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the claimant under Section 140 of MV Act has been allowed, fastening liability upon the ^ y appellant/insurance company, the instant appea! has been preferred. 3. The facts in brief are as under: 4. On 26.09.2007, KusumDevi (since deceased) met with an accident with Jeep bearing registration No. USM-8856 and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 5. The respondentNo. 1 preferred a daim petition under Section 166 of MV Act claiming compensation Rs. 1,57,500/-for the death of deceased in the saidaccident. Also filed an appllcation under Section 140 of the MV Actclaiming Rs. 50,000/-as no fault compensation. 6. Theappellant filed its reply and denied the existence of policy. It was furtherstated in the written statement that said policy was forged and fabricated. 7. The trialcourt without holding any enquiry into the matter, held the appellant responsible for payment of compensation to the claimant based on copy of policy filed by the claimants obtained from the criminal court despite the objection raised by the appellant. 8. Shri Rajput, learned counsel appearing for theappellant would contend that the award passed under Section 140 is an award, the trial court is duty bound to pass the award after holding summaryenquiry. As the award has been passed without holding any enquiry and without taking into consideration the objections raised by the appellant, the award being erroneous deserves to be set aside. 1 '^- ^-" 9. On the other hand, Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 & 3 would contend that the award passed by the Tribunal is based on appreciation of material and deserves to be upheld. 10. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugnedand material placed before this court. 11. A bare perusal of copy of written statement filed by the appellant (Annexure A/3)Wou!d reveal that the appetlant in para 5 to 7 of its written statement had categorically pleaded that cover note filed in the case is forged and fabricated. 12. Undisputedly, the Tribuna! has not considered the objections raised by the appellant regarding existence of policy cover covering risk of offending vehicle at the time of accident while passing the award impugned which is not sustainable in law. 13. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this court, the award deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back for decisioh afresh. It is directed that the trial court shall pass the award after considering theobjections raised by the appeltant in its written statement and after holding summary enquiry therefor in accordance with law on its own merits. 14. It is further made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits ofthe matter. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge