yVf :''E3 ©„ u ,..—,iS^neh 'tQVl B .-"--"• IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR M.A^(c) N0. 2-^5 OF 201j^ li APPELLANT: (Non-applicant No.3) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through the Divisional Manager-, Divisional Office, In Front of Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C6) (Insurer of the Maruti Van T-10.C612/BB/1963) Vs RESPONbENTS: fClaimants) 1. Smt. Jaimati Kol, wife of Lote Sarwan Kol, aged about 26 years. 2. Kumari Varsha Kol, d/o Late .-••tt'S4-^"^ Sarwan Kol, aged about 12 yrs. >""<^f^'y"~ ^K ^^^^•r-rr ^8'1^"-.."^^0' •'y ^ t 3. Om Prakash Kol, s/o of Late S^ Sarwan Kol, aged about 10 yrs 4. Sohan Lal, s/o of Late Sarwan Kol, !?^ aged about 04 yrs. 5. Amaruram Kol, s/o of Lokai, aged ^ about 58 yrs. 6. Kusumwati Kol, wife of Shri Amarurom Kol, aged 55.years. Nos.2 to 4 are minors through their natural guardian mother- Smt, Jaimati Kol, wife of Late Sarwan Kol, aged about 26 years. A\\ residents of Village Bindawal, Tehsil <& P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur (C6) 7. Laliu Yadav, s/o Sarju, r/o Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, r 3 ^ Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur (C6) (Driver of Maruti Van No.C612/ BB/ 1963) 8. Rajesh Pandey, son of not known, r/o Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur (C6) (Owner of Mar-uti Van \ NO.C&IZ/BB/1963) ^y^j^pptol- A.A^.ooo/-^^' MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNbCR SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 ^ HIGH COIIRT OF <aiHATTU3C.ARH. BILA8PUR DB: Hoa'bte I. M; QUM1USI te Hon'ble G. MINHAJimDUi, JJ APPBLLANT: RE8POm®NT8: APPBUANT: RE8POBIDEMT8: AICt No.ai4/S»ll The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sm.t Parwati Shyain and others Bl.AICI Mo. 215/2011 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sint Jaimati Kol and 3 others MI8C. APPBAL8 UNDBR SECTIOIH 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLB8ACT. 1988 Api>ea»ance: Mr. Sandccp Sbrivastava, Coiinsel for the appeBant/ Insuraace Company. Mr. Praveen liulsyau, counsel fcr respoiidents l to 5 in M.A(q. 214/2011 and respondents 1 to 6 ia M.A(q. No. 215/ 2011. Mr.Qamrul Aaz, counsel for respoitdeats 6 fi6 7 ia M.A(C). No.214/2011 and respondents 7 & 8 in M.A(C ). No.215/ 2011. Per I.M. QODDUSI.Jt ORALOW?BR (01.08.2011) 2. Heaid. These are two appeala filed by the Insuraucc Compauy against the impugned award dated 18.11.2010 passed by thc III AddL Motor Acddent Claims Tribimal, Bflaspur (C.G) ia Claim Case No.82/2010 filed by Smt Parvati Shyam and ^ •^^' Claim Case No.83/2010 filcd by Smt Jaymati Kol & others so far as it relates to fasteiiing of UabiUly on thc Insuraacc Coinpany as also quaatum fixed by the Tribunal. M.A(C). No.214/2011 relates to Claim Casc No.82/2010 and M.A(C). No.215/2011 relates to Claim Case No. 83/2010. Siace bofh fhese appeals arise out the sanue accjdeut caused by Maruti Van beariog Regn.No. C.G. 10-BB/7312, they are beiug disposed ofby this^sonunon order. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claunaats arc that on 24.04.2009 deces^cd peraons Avtar Shyam Sarvan Kol wcre returumg fiTQin thc weckty inarket of viBage Chaparwaha on the inotorcyclc. Sarvaa Kol was driving fhe motorcycle aad Avtar Shyam was thc pUUon rider, When they havc coine on the laain road, a Maruti Vaa bearing Regn.No.C.G. 10/BB/7312 coming fi?om Achaaalanar sidc in a rash and negUgent inaaner dashed the inotorcyclc of ^fhe -.^1 deceased, as a result of which, both the occupante of thc inotorcyclc i.e., Avtar Shyain and Sarvaa Kol sustained grievous injuries and dfed on the spot. Thc lcgal heirs/depcndents of deccased Avtar Shyam have ffled Claim pctition beiag Claim Case No.82/2010 u/s 166 of fhe Motor VchiGles Act for fhc total award of coinpensation of Rs. 18,50,000/- whcreas thc legal represcntatives/dcpeiulents ofdeccased Sarvaa Kol have filed Claim Petition bemg CIaim Case No. 83/2010 u/s 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for fhe award of total compcnsation of Rs.19,50,000/-. Thc Leamed Claims Tribiinal has hcld that Maruti Vaa bearing Rega.NQ.C.G.lO-A/5049 was iavolrcd ia thc accident, -rf' /t , HS3 , . :d'"..fe k "'<• <7,0 as a resiilt of which, both fhe occupants of fhe naotoroycte Avtar Shyam aad Sarvaa died and havaq; fhus heM. it has awarded Rs. 4,42,000/- in CIaim Casc No.82/10 and Rs.4,42,,000/- which fhe clsumants are cntitled to receiwed fix>xn thc non-appUcaats joinfty and severaUy. 5. Leamed counsel for the appellaut has subtaitted that thete was contribtitoiy xiegUgence, for that purpose pertBMSon u/s 170 of fhe MVA was graated and furfhcr tfae vehicle was beaq; used for coxaiaeicial purpose whereas fhe insurancc poUcy was for private piirpose, thcrefore, there is breach of conditiotis of fhe insiurancc policy. Hence, thc insuBance coinpaay is not Uable to pay conupensation. 6. -We havc heard leamed counsel for fhe pta-ties aad have also gone through. the records of the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal has fi-amed aad adjudicated the farmal issues onty with regard to tfafi involvcmeat of fhe vehicle ia questton and the death of fhe deceascd pcrsons ia tlic said accideat as weU as the entiflement of fhe clauiiants but no issues regardiag contributoiy negligence aad breach of conditfons of the insurance policy have been fiamcd. The leanaed Clauas Tribunal ought to have ficamed fhese -issues and shouM. havc conducted eiaquity to asccrtaia tfae Truth, but it haa not becn donc. Therefore, fhis Court is of fhe view that the inatter requires reconsideratton at tfae end offhe Tribiuaal. 8. In view of the above, we aUow these appcals in part and »emit . the xnatter back to fhe Tribunal for decKion a&esh in the light ofthe above observations. G. 9. Needless to miention that the parties shall be aUowed to amend the pleadiugs, adduce further evidence, file docuinents or get the docuinents verified etc. and thereafter Tbe Tribuiial shall inake endeavor to conclude the proceedings as early as possible preferably within a period of 6 nioaths. The partics shatl appear before the Tribunal on 05th Septeinbcr, 2011. The rccords ofthe Tribunal shaU be sent back without further delav. The aiuount deposited by fhe insuraace coiapaay ia coiupliaace of fhe iaterim oider dated 21.02.2011 shaU-t aUowed to be wifhdrawn on fi.inushiag securily to fhe satisfaction of the Claiins Tribunal conceraed by the claimants which shall be subject to the decision of the claim petition. In fhe result, fhe appeals are allowed ia part. No order as to cost(s). 11. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao