^ ^ IN..THEHON'Bl£HK21COURIQECHHA-Ta&QABIlA3: BILASEU8. MJ^(C)No.j00>!> OF2010 n^B.sft't, (APPEALVALUED AT Rs. 3^1JOOO/-V APPEAL UNDER_SECTION173 OF.mEM(2TQRYEinCLESACT,1988 APPELLANT (Non- Appli< United ladia Insurance Company Lunited, Branch-Office, Bramha - Road, AmbikapUT, Distt.-Surguja (C.G.) ^^-" ^^ESPOltoENTS (APPLICANT N0.1) (APPUCANT N0.2) (APPUCANT NOJ3\ l.R Mankunwar, W/o- Late Daya ^ ^ 3., (NON-APPLICANT N0.1) 4. ^.<, Singh Gond, aged about-40 years, caste - Gond, Ku. Kaushilya, D/o-Late Daya Singh Gond, aged about-14years. Mahesh, S/o-Late Daya Singh Gond, aged about-11 years. Respondent no. 2 & 3 are minor, through fheir mother- Mankunwar (Respondent no. L). All are R/0- Village- Lalpnr, Gram Panchayat- Belbahra, P.0. - Kafkona, Khadgavan, Distt. Koria(C.G.). Ali Ahmad, S/o - Late Mehndi Hasan, aged about - 43 years, R/0- Manendragarli, Ward no. 1, P.S.- Maaendragar^i, Distt.-Koria (C.G.) ''.'S^'.Si:^ HIQH COURT < CTIHATnSGAKH. BILASPUR DB: Hon'bte I. M. ^TODUM & Hoa'ble G. MIWHAJUDDm, JJ APPBLLANT: RESPONDBNTS: M.AICI N0.1093/2010 United Indja IisiM-aace Coinpaay Ltd, Vs. Mankunww aad ofhers MISC. APPEAL inroER SBCTIOM 173 OF THB MOTCMI VBHICLM» ACT. 1988 Appearaace: Mr. D^ihraffa Gupta, counsel for thc appeUant Mr. Vivek Shiilda, couasel fer resptnideats 1 to 3. Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel for respoiidcnt ao.4. ORAL OKDSR (28.07.20111 Per I.M. OUDDUSI, J. 1. This appeal has beea fited ty fhe Insurance Company ayamst thc nnpugncd award dated 29.03.2010 passed by thc AddL Motor Accident Clauns Tribunal, Manendragarh, district Koria. (C.G) in Claim Case No. 15/2009. 2. ' Brief facts of the case as per the version of claimaats are that thc deceased Sarju Singh was working as Khalasi in the Bus bcarixig Regn.No.C.G.15-ZA/0711 owned by respoadent no.4 on a monthty saleuy of Rs.30007-. On 20.02.2009 when the said Bus was being driven by respondcat no.4 hnnselfin a rash and negl^ent manner, mct with accident near vBtaye Lakrapara, as a result of which, Sarju Singh who was dischatgmg tus duty ia the said Bus sustained gricvous injitrics and died. At the time bf accident, fhe decc^sed -was^ 6. aged about 22 years aad was eaniing nionthty sdaiy of Rs.3000/-. nThe Clannants ben^ dependcnts/lcgal representatives filed claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for thc award of total coinpensatfon of Rs. 12,50,OOO/- on various heads. Lcanied Clauns Tribuiial held that the. Muu Bas beanng Regn.No.C.G. 15-ZA/0711 niet wifh accident when it was drwen by respondent no.4, as a result of which, Sarju Sit^h dfed; there was no bieach ofcoaditions ofpollcy by respondent ao.4 and the iacoine of fhe deceascd was Rs.3000/- pcr inonfh. Having thus held, it has awardcd a total coinpnesaiton of Rs. Learaed couasd for fhe appeBaut has inaaify raised two contentions. The first oae is fhat fhe risk of KaJcesi was not covered iinder the Insurancc PoUcy and as such the insutancc company is not responsible to pay fhc amount ofcompcnsation to fhe claunaate. The Second contention is that fhe bus involved ia the accident was not havlt^; pcrmit to ply the same on fhe date ofaccidenfc We have heard leamed counsel for the parties and have also gone throi^h the recoids. A perusal of the contents offhe insuTance poUcy shows fhat thue seating capad/ty iacluswc of driver and cteaner wss 22 whereas the insuraacc has been made for total 24 persoas. Hcwever, iu the evidence of owner of the Bus who hunseU" was driving fhe vehicle has stated that thcre was ao conductor in his bus aad fhe Khalasi was doing the duty of conductor on the date ofaccident. Therefore, fhte contentiEm is not sustainabte that the deceaaed was not covered under r> •fhe insuraace poUcy as troo persons as WC employces were insuied uader fhe poUcy. 7. The next contention is wifh regaxd to bus pennit. We have perused the lomer court record and fouad that the Xerox copy of the pennit is available on record. However, it appears that by austakje of the leacned couusel, it was not inentioned ia fhe Ust of documcnts, Therefoic, it requites renaoval ofdoubtregardiag possessfon ofpermit 8. Therefore, this Court is of thc view fhat fhc naatter requtes reconsideration at fhe ead of fhe Tribunal. Hence, we aUow this appeal in part; set aside the iiapugaed award dated 29.03.2010 aud reinit fhe inatter back to fhe Tribunal for dcdision afiesh. The Tribunal shatt also res^sess fhe coinpensation regardiag standard dcduction ctc., foBowiag the decision of Hon'ble Supreine Court in Sarla Verma (Snd.^ -v»-flBUri lyunaport Corporatton an/tt. wiwttwr reportad tn (2009) 6 SCC 121. 9. Needless to naention that the partics shatt bc aflowed to ainead the pleadings, adduce further cvidcnce, fBe docuaaents or gpt the docunients verified ete., and thereafter fhe Ti&unal shaU pass fhe award afissh at the earliest The recoads of the - Tribunal shaU be sent back wifhout auy furtfaer <telay. No order as to costs. _ Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao r