IN THE HIGH COURtQf? CHHATTKSARH AT BILASPLIR Msc. Appeal No. /"^ /2iXM APPELLANT ,. IMendant No.2 / aaimant y Urated Incfia Insurance Cwmpany Lta, Amhikapiu-, through IXvisional Qffic^. Kortia(CG). Anil Kuinar, ZSyears, S/o Jagnarayan Pi-asad, R/o Wlage- Thaggaon, Post- Banjaridand, P.S. Khatgava, TehsU- Manendragarh, Distt. Korea(CG.) Barelal, 30 yearSt S/o Jagnatayan Praad, R/o Vmage- Thaggaon, P&st- Banjaridan4 PS. Khatgava, Teteil- Manetidragatli, Distt. Korea (CG.) ^" AFFEAL UNDER SECnpN173 OFTHE MOTORVEmCLES ACT. 1^8 KBPONDENT /OefoidantNb.l .->'? .^-•- ?:%^^ ,.^^^ r< ••• ><<se ^ / n HIGH COURT OF CHHATH8GARH, BILASPDR DB: Hoa'ble I. M. QUDDUSI & Hoa'bla G. MINHAJCDDIN, JJ APPBLLANT: RBSPOKDENT8: M.A. Mo.178/2004 Uiiited India Insuraace Coinpaay Ltd. Vs. Anil Kiunar and anofher MISC. APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VBHICLBSACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr. Ajay Mishra, counsel for fhe appellan.t. Mr. Roshan Verma, counscl for fhe respoadent no.2. PCT I.M. QUDDUSI. J. ORAL ORDBR (01.07.201l| This appeal has been ftlcd by the Insuraacc Coinpany agamst fhe impugaed award dated 28.11.2003 passed by thc Additional Motor Accident C]auns Tnbunal, Maaendragarh, District Korea (C.G) in Claim Case No.38/2001 on fhe question liabiHty as also quantuni. Bricf facts of the case as per thc versiou of the injured claimant are that on 14.6.2001 fhe clauaant after loading grain bags at viUage Thaggaon ia Jeep bearing Regn.No. M.P. 27/7058 belonged to respoiident no.2 was goiag to viUage Bodemuda by driviwg the said vehicle. On fhe way at vfflage, Sirighat on Gurchhela draia due to failuxe of brakes, {be Jeep bccame uncontroUed and tumed turtle, as a i-esTiIt of which, he "was pressed imder thc jeep and sustamed serious iajury on tfae left leg aad hfo lefl. leg was amputated fi»mbelow fhe kaee. There was also fiacture in his right leg. He also sustained iajurfes on his left eye and left ann. He- was adnutted in Regipnal Hdspital, Chirimiri •for prunaiy treafaaent aad (hcreafter he was brought to Central Hospital, Manendragarh where after conducting aa 4. operation, his left leg bdow the knec was amputated and plaster was inade oa his right leg. The claimant remamed adinitted in Menendr^arh Hospital from 14.6.2001 to 25.06.2001. The claimant became pennanently disabled due to fhe iajuries sustaiaed in the acddent and now he is not able to do the job of driver. At the tinie of accident he was driver aad was. eaming Rs.3000/- per moath plus aBowance ofRs.50/- per day. The claimant has filed claim petition u/s 163-A ofthc Motor Vehicles Act for the award of total coiapensation to thc tune of Rs.647000/- oa various heads. The Clatms Tribiuial having regard to the facts situation aad evidence on record held that the Vehicle m. questiou was involved ia the accident as a result of which the claimant has becoine permanentfy disabled and it has awanled a total coinpensation of Rs.3,40,280/- which fhe claiiaant is entitled to receive fiom the appellant and rcspondent no.2 joiutly: and severatfy. Leamed counsel for the appellant subauts that fhe Vehiclc in. question was iasiucd luider thc comprehensive poUcy whereby only the third party risk is covered. Hc furfher submits that the driver was thc real brofher of fhe owaer of fhe Jeep aud both were residing togefhcr, fherefore, he is not covered under fhe poUcy. Leamed counsel for respondent no.2 owner subnuts that the claanant was employcd by him as driver to drive the >Jeep and the driver was covered iiader fhe Insurance PoUcy. We have gone through the recoids of fhe Tribunal. A perusal pf ttie msuran.oe poMcy shows that the jeep was iasiired' under Motor Pack^e Policy also caUed as coiapreliensive poUcy wliereby fhe risk was covered for total six persons (5 + 1). The Tribunal has not recoxded any specific finding fhat whefher the claimaat was covered under the policy and whethcr fhere was breach of poUcy cpnditions. We are offhe opiaion that fhe Tribuaal has not conducted aay enquuy as envisagcd in Rule 226 ofthe C.G. ^ '-v.^'' Motor Vehicle Rulcs, 1994 aad Sections 168 aadl69 offhe Motor Vehictes Act, 1988. 6. TIiereforc, we are of fhe opinion that fhe inatter requires reconsideration at the end ofthe TribunaL 7. Hence, we aUow this 'appeal ia part and reaait the matter back to the Tnbunal.for deciskin afcsh iu the light of the observations made hereiaabove. 8. Needless to meution that the .parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadiiigs, adduce furfher evidence, ffle documente or get fhe documcnts venficd etc., and fh.ereafter fhe Tnbiinal shaU niake the award afiresh aftcr conducting enquuy. The pardcs shaU appear before fhe Tribzmal on 02ulAueust. 2011. The records of thc Tribuoal shaU be sent back forthwifh. No order as to costs.< Sd/- LM. Quddusi .Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao