f 1" IN THEHIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Aaueal {C} No. /2006 APPELLANT ^Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Shiv Mohan Bhavan, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Pandri, Raipur Tahsil 8s Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS T f. A>^ »' /w ^' ^s- €^ <^" 5^ ^ ^9. % Smt. Paras Bai Wd/o Late Vishambhar Das Baghel Aged about 34 years, Ku. Kan'ileshawari Bai D/o Late Vishambhar Das Baghel Aged about 17 years, Ku. Hemkumari D/o Late Vishambhar Das Baghel Aged about 10 years, Sagar S/o Late Vishambhar Das Baghel, aged abouf 01 year, Tirith Bai Wd/o Late Namdas Baghel, aged about 70 years, Respondent no. 2 to 4 minor represented though natural guardian mother Smt. Paras Bai, All R/o Village- Bhainsmudi, Post Office- Bhandarpuri, District Raipur (C.G.) ( CLAIMANTS) Mehataru Koshale S/o Lodhi Rain Koshle, R/o Village- Bhainsmudi, Post Office- Bhandarpuri, Thana ' Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE) ME5IORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 h^} i.S'T^^'S.S' £^^H^'s'r'SSfTt fV^ rfKi'S12"£T&WWTtT££^£.A'S2t'S.2l&wl- 12T? AS'OYT'ES ^l.l.Sjr^'X ^^^V^LA ^»y£^^£iS^L£±i A i.OtJUUSLJEl M.A. iCi N0. OF 2006 APPBLLAIW RESPONDENTS Bajaj Aliianz General tosuraiice Corupany Liiuited. versuS Smt. Paras Bai ouiers. APPEAL UNDER SECTIGN 173 OF THE VEHICL^ ACT. 1988 Sinffle Bencn: Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, <J. Presents Shri S.S. Rajput, counsel for the appfeUant. Slui S.C. Vernia, coansel for respondents No. 1 to 4. None for otucr respondents thougu served. ^nfc¥^* V '^''°»y%¥?*?"» (Passed on 14th day ofJuly; 2011) Tliis appeal has been filed unuer Secfion 173 of the Motor Velucles Act (for short Uie Acf) agauist uie impugned awai'd dated 06-10-2006 passeu by 8& Additioual Motor Accident Claiiiis Tribunal, F.T.C., RaipLu' (for short fhe Clauns TribLUial) in Claim Case No.66/2005 fasteiiiug liabuity to pay Uie amoaiit of compensation on the appellatit/Insuiaiice Conipany johitly and severaBy along wifl'i flie owner respondent No.6. 2. Brief facts of.tfae case as projected by tlie clainiaats are uiat respoiident No.6 was ,tue owner aiid appcuaat was the iiisuier of the vehicle (Motorcycle) beai'ing registration No. C.G.04-CJ/2379. On 14-09-2005 at 11-00 P.M., deceased Visambhar' Baghel was going towai'ds liis viUage Bhainsinudi on Motorcycle bearing fegistration No. C.G. 04-CJ/2379. On the way, fi'ont wheel tyre of tlie said motorcycle got burst due to wliich flie said motorcycle becaiue uncontrolleu and at fhe same tunc,fhe inotorcycle was dashed by unknown veliicle, as a result of which/ /// 1 deceased Visanibhar succumbed to uie iajuries sustaineu in the said accident. Iriforination of fhe incldent was given to fhe Police Station Kharora upon whlch offences were registered by fhe pouce under Section 279,337,304 of the I.P.C. 3. The unfortunate claimants i.e. Mother, widow and ruuior cliudren of the deceased had filed a petiuon under Section 163-A of ttie Act, before fhe Clakas Tribunal clalmuig a total compensation of Rs.4,45,000/- for the death of the deceased. 4. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of evidence led, uiaterial placed and submissions made by the parties, has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,79,500/- and it lias been held that uic appeUant/Insurance Company is liable to pay flie amount of compensation along witli uiterest @ 7.5% per aruiUDi froiti fhe date of application tUl its payment. 5. I have hear'd learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Clauns Tribunal as well as the uupugned award. 6. Learneu counsel for the appellant has contended that as Uie deceased at ttie relevant polnt of time was driviag fhe motorcycle witfa the permission of flie pwner who was riuuig the motorcycle as pUUon rider, fhe deceased had stepped hito fhe shoes of the owner i.e. respondent No.6 and iii view ofHon"ole Supr'eme Court in Oriental Insurance Cofnpcmy Ltd. vs. Kcgrw. Devi, reporled ui (2008) S SCC 736 anu Ningcunma cund ccnother vs. United India Insvrcwtce Coinpany Lindted; reported ui (2003j 13 3CC 710, fhe owner carinot be botfi the r-1flimant aiid r'ecipient in a case and hence fhe appllcation of fhe claiuiants i.e. respondents No. 1 to 5 before the Clainis Tribuiial was not maintauiable and has beeii wrongly entertained by the Claims Tribunai, _He_ .<<••' s S -y further contends (hat as far as persoiial accident coverage up to Rs.1,00,000/- is concerned, as per Indla Motor Tai'iff (IMT) General Reg-alation No.36, fue personal accident covera.ge is Umited to the registered owner - driver who possesses a valid. and effecu.ve drivm.g ucence arid as such the deceased who was adniittedly not fhe owner of tue uiotorcycle is not covered luider the pei'sonal accldeiiL coverage and consequenuy, under tliat head also the claunants i.e. respondents No. 1 to 5 are not entitled for' aay aBiount. 7. On the contraiy, learned counsel for fhe claiaiants/respondents No. 1 to 5 has contended uiat IMT General RcgTilauon No. 36 which is beuig quoted by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Conipaiiy was not produced before the Clakus Tribuaal and as such fhe claiuiants/respondents no. 1 to 5 had no opportunity to meet fhis. In vlew of fhe above, learned counsel for the claimaiits/i'espotiuents No. l to 5 prays fhat In the Interest ofjustice, the niatter may be remitted back to fhe Clairns Tribunal for reconsiueration and for passuig an awai'd airesn. It is not iri dispute that nelfher ttic owner nor tfac claimanLS/respondents No. 1 to 5 have furnished pai'ticulars of fhe urivlng Ucence of the deceased before fhe Clauns Tnounal wliich fhe driver or fhe person in charge of fhe motorcycle is duty bound to supply as per fhe provision of Section 134 of the Act. The Claims Tribunal has given finuiiig on issue no.3 that fhe appeUant/Insurance Corapany has been uiisuccessfiil in proving fhat tfaere has been a breach of conditions of pollcy of insurauce. As tfae pai'ticulars of tue driving ucence of the deceased was not furiiishcd before fhe Claims Tribunal it was not possible for the appeUant/Insurance Conipany to verify about fhe genuineness of the sanie. In view of fhe totality of ttie facts and cu'cuinstances of fuc case, the matter needs to be reraitteu uack to uic Clainis Tribunal for reconsideration. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and setting aside fhe impugned awar'd, tlie iiiatter is remitted back to the Clauns Tribunal for passing an awar-d afresh. 10. In the process of conducting enquu'y as per provisions of Sections 168 and 169 of fhe Motor Veliicles Act ai-id Rule 226 offlie C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 for ascertauiing the trufh, the Claims Tribunal shall afford reasonable. opporturuty of hearuig to the parues which shaU uiclude opportunity to araend tiie pleaduigs, if necessary, GUng of documents or' to get the docuuients verified etc., adducing furfher evidence and then to pass iail reasoned award airesh. 11. As per order of fhls Court, 50% of fhe amouiit of conipensation has been deposited by fhe appeUant/Insurance Cornpany and the saiue shall be subject to fhe award to be passeu afresh. 12. The parties shall appear before fhe Clauns Tribunal on 23-08-2011. 13. The records of tlie Claims Tribm-ial shall be. sent back wifhout aiiy furfher delay. 14. No Qrder as to costs. Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge