AT BILASPUR IN THE HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH ^ ''ws'on88ffC» M. A. (Cl No. ^w /2010 ON^ong^ %n- ^- f^ APPELLANT : Tfere Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [NON-APPLICANT N0.2] (^Through: Divisional Manager, ^^ t .^ Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Bilaspur, Rama ..^-\V® Trade Center, In front of Rajiv .'»,^' ".F^-:':81^' Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur '(C.G.) RESPONDENTS [Applicant no. 1] [Applicant no. 2] [Applicant no. 3] [Applicant no. 4] [Applicant no. 5] [Applicant no. 6] VERSUS = ^ • ^ 4; ^" Smt. Sumitra Bai, Wd/o. Late Ram Gopal Sahu, aged about 32 years, Ku. Jalvati D/o. late Ram Gopal Sahu, aged about 12 years, Rohit Kumar S/o. Late Ram Gopal Sahu, aged about 10 years, Roshan Kumar, S'/o. late Ram Gopal Sahu, aged about 7 years, Smt. Bundelia Bai W/o. Budhram Sahu, aged about 58 years, Budhram Sahu, S/o. Fokwa Sahu, aged about 60 years, Respondent no. 2 to 4 are minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Sumitra Bai Wd/o. Ramgopal. All Resident of Village Kharkena, P.S. Hirri Tahsil, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Chandra Prakash @ Chandra Kumar S/o. C.R. Sahu, R/o. Village Kharkena, P.S. Hirri, Tahsil -Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) w^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION S?4 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,1988 HI6H COUKT OF CHHATTISeARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QU&DUSI & HON'BLE MR.6ULAM MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. ApDellant Resoondents ApDellant Resoondents M.A. [cl No.643/2010 The Oriental Insurance Compony Ltd. Vs Smt. Sati Bai <& others & M.A. tcl No.644/2010 Vs The Oriental Insurance Cotnpany Ltd, Smt. Sumitra Bai <& others Present: Mr- A.K. Athaley, Advocate for Itie appellcint in both the appeals, Mr. A.C. Sahu, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 6 in M.A, (C) No.644/t0, Mr. S. Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.l to 5 in M-A. (C)No,643/10, Miss A. Kumdri, Advocdte for respondent-Chandra Prakash. OR&ER (OraD (3rd August, 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. M.A. (C) No.643/10 filed against the award dated 22.3.2010 passed by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. FTC, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.137/08 and M.A. (C) No.644/10 filed against the award dated 22.3.2010 passed by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC, Biiaspur in Claim Case No.54/09 are bein9 disposed of by this common order as both these appeals have arisen fromthe same accident which took place on 22.04.2008 when the matador bearing registration number C610-A-2899, in which the deceased persons namety Mangal Kaushik & Ram90pal Sahu were travelin9 as bosratis, overtumed due to rash and ne9li9ent drivin9 resutting in their death. 3. The respective claimants of above stated deceased persons have filed two separate claim apptications seeking compensation to tune of Rs.IO,70/000/- & Rs.18,55,000/- respectively on the ground that they were dependent on ^^ '%^ '"-% '^:^ as.1 !t i y s ..:'..,.,.^^:" ! the deceased, who was the sole earning member in family, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. Claim applications filed by tiie claimants were partly allowed by the Claims Tribunal vide award dated 22,3,2010 and the appellant Insurance Company has been held liable to pay amount of compensation to the cbimants on the ground that at the time of accident the vehicle was not plied in breach of the conditions of insurance policy. 4. Leamed counsel for the appellount-Insurance Company has sufamitted that at the time of accident driver of the vehicle-in-question was not having valid & effective driving licence and in this regard the Insurance Company had also examined witness namely Arvind Khalko (t>W-2) but no issue to the effect whether driver of the vehicle in questionwas having valid and effective drivin9 licence was framed by the Claims Tribunal, 5, On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned award. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Claims Tribunal as also the findings given in the impugned award. 7. On perusal of the written statement filed by the insuronce compcxny It is evident that in the additional submissions the Insuronce Compcxny has contended that on the date of accident, driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving licence and therefore the Insuronce Company is not liable to pay any compensation. However/ despite specific pleadings regarding valid aaid effective driving licence, 1+ie Claims Tribunal did not frame any issue in this regard. Therefore, we feel that the matter requires nsconsideration at 1+ie end of the Claims Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, we allow the appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and remit the matt-er back to the Claims Tribunal for takin9 decision afresh after framing issue to the effect as to whether on the date of accident driver of the vehicle-in-question was havin9 valid and effective driving. Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and amend the pleadings or Y .^-^.^ ^^'y^'&- . '^ •m.^sss:. ^ to file documents or verify the documents etc, already fited. The amount, which has already been deposited by the appettant-Insur'an<a Company and yet not disbursed to the claimants, shall not be either refunded to the appellont-Insunance Company or disbursed to the claimants ond it shall be kept in a fixed deposit scheme of a nationalized bank till the decision is taken afresh by the Claims Tribunal< 9. The appellant is directed to oppear before the Claims Tribunat concemed on 7th SeDtember. 2011. The ftegistry is directed to transmit record of the Claims Tribunal concerned without further deloy. No order as to costs» lO.Certified copy as per rules. Roshan/- Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge