IN THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. . .^ 5. .1 OF 2011 (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs.4.32.500/-) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEmCLES ACT. 1988. APPELANT : (NON- APPLICANT N0 .3) ^,^a^ ^^^^ ^••"^' RESPONDENTS (APPLICANT N0.1) (APPLICANT N0.2) ( NON- APPLICANT No:l) (NONAPPLICANT-N0.2) :1. :2 National Insurance Corapany Limited, through its Divisional- Manager, Divisional-Office B-l Taha Complex 1st Floor, Ring Road, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur, Distt.-Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Mst. Silo Bai, Wd./O - Late Mahabir Ram, aged about-35 years, (Wife of deceased ) Mst. Sadhri Bai, Wd./O - Late Moti Ram, aged about - 65 years, (Mother of deceased) Both are Uraon, R/0- Sukhrapara (Darrapara), P.S. & Tah.-Pathalgaon, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) Anil Kumar, S/0-Chandrika F'rasad Shanna, aged-30 years, Caste-Brahman, R/O-Near Bijaur Bus stand (in front of shop of the Raghubir Halwai), P.S.- Chaunepur, Distt.- Kanpur(U.P.)(Driver) Hasibuddin, S/O-Haji Khaliluddin, 132/388 Babu Purva Kanpur, Shanti Banti Motor Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur, Distt.- Kanpur (U.P.) o HIO-H COXJRT OF CHBE&TTISGAKH AT BHASPU'R [.A. (C) N0. 551 OF 2011 APPELLANT/ INON-APPUCANT NG.Si RBSPQNDENTS Na'uoiial iiisui'aiice Cuiupaiiy Ltraited. Mst. SUo Bai ancl othei's. APPEAL USiDER SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR D.B.:ijtoBl»teSfan LM. Quudust & Hoa'ble Shri G. Minh&iuddiQ. JJ. Present; Shri Ds-shrath Oupta, counsel for the appellant. Shri Avuiash Mahapatra, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. IPassed oa 15th day ofSeptember, 201 lt Per I.M. QuddusL <?• Respondent No. 3 is a dr-iver. Therefore, liis appearaiice is dlspensed with. 2. TMs appeal has been filed by tl-ie appellant/Natlonal Insuraiice Company Limlted agaiiist the impugned award dated 07-12-2010 passed by the Additional Motor Accldent Claims Tribunal, Jashpur at Kurikuri (for short the Clalms Tribmial*) in Ctaim Case No.28/2007 iii so far as it relates to fastenlng the Uabillty upon fhe appeUant/Insurance Corupany to pay compensation to the claunants. 3. Brlef facts of the case, accordmg to claimants, ai'e that appUcant/claimant Nos. 1 and 2 are wlfe and mothear of tlie deceased respectlvely. Non-applicant No. l was driver, non-applicaiit No. 2 was owner and iion-appllcant No. 3 was Insurer of the offendiiig vehicle. On 17-05-2006 at about 2-30 P.M., deceased Mahabu' Ram was gomg to shop in tlie vUlage Sukhra. Para to purchase some articles. At that time, ^- S>"'-.»A>. he was dashed by offendmg veliicle (Truck) beai'ing reglstratioii No. U.P. 78-A.T./8366, wliich was bemg di'iven by non-applicant No. 1 ina. rash aiid negligent mamier, as a result ofwhich Mahablr Rara died on the spot. 4. The clakuants beuig legal helrs pf fhe deceased had filed a petitlon under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act (for short <fhe Acf) before the Clakas Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.27,95,000/- for fl-ie death of tl-ie deceased. ^ 5. Learned Tribunal on a close scruthiy of evidence led, material placed and submissions made by fhe pai'ties, has awai'ded a sum of Rs.4,32,500/- along wifh interest @ 6% per aruram from the date of application tiU its paymeat agauist the appeUant along with respondents No.3 & 4, jointly aiid sevei'ally. 6. No one is present for (he owner of fhe offending veliicle, though served. 7. We have perused the records of the Clalms Tribunal and fomid tliat no issue was framed as to tvhetliei' fhe vehlcle was msm'ed or not? Tliough evidence was adduced on beliatf of the appellant to show that the cheque issued for premium of the insm'ance was dis-honouf-ed because of insiifiicient fund and intlmaUoii was already glven to the owner of (he vel-iicle caiicelmg the insurance pollcy but no issue was framed ai-id fhe plea of the appeUaiit was disbelieved. Therefore, in oui~ oph-iion it lyill be a fit case to remit flie matter back to the Claim^Tribunal concerned for asceilaui fhe truth r^arding Uability to pay couipensation to fhe claimants. 8. In vlew ofthe above, we allow tUs appeal ui part, set- aside the impugned awai'd In so far as it relates to fasteninj of Ua.bUity upon the appellant/Insiirance Company to pay compensation to the claiman.ts and remit the matter back to o. he was dashed by offendlng velilcle (Ti-uck) beai'lng registration No. U.P. 78-A.T./8366, which was being di'lven by non-applicantt No. 1 ui a rash and negligent mamier, as a result ofwliich Maliabii' Ram died on fhe spot. 4. The claimants beiiig legal helrs of the deceased had filed a petition mider Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act (for short tiie Acf) before fhe Claims Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.27,95,000/- for tlie death of tfae deceased. 5. Leai'ned Tribunal on a close scrutuiy of evidence led, material placed and submissions made by fhe parties, has awarded a sum of Rs.4,32,500/- along wifh mterest @ 6% per amriim from. the date of application tUl its payxnent against the appeUant alor^ with respondents No.3 & 4, joinfly and sevei'atly. 6. No one is present for the owner of fhe offending veliicle, though senred. 7. We have perused the records of fee Clalms Tribunal and fonnd fliat no issue was fr-amed as to whetlier fhe veliicle was insm'ed or not? Thougli evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant to show that flie cheque issued for premium of fhe Uisurance was dis-honoured because of insufiicient fund and intimation was already glven to ttie owner of (he vehicle canceUng the insiirance policy but no issue was frarued and^fhe plea of ftie appeuant was disbeUeved. Therefore, in our opiaion it lyUl be a fit case to remit fhe inatter back to the Claims Tribunal concerned for ascertain the trath r^arduig Uabfflty to pay conipensation to fhe claimants. 8. In view of the above, we allow tliis appeal ia part, set- aside fhe kapugned award la so far as it relates to fasteiiinj of Uability upon tlie appellant/'Iiism'ance Compaiiy to pay coiapexisation to the claimants and remit the raatter back to ^'.0 the Claims Tribunal for decislon afresh. Rest of tfae findii%s offhe impugiied award shall remaln In tact. 9. Needless to mention fl'iat on the polnt wteflier tlie veliicle in questlon was msm'ed or tlie msm-ance was effective by flie appellant/lasiirance Compaiiy, shaH be decided after grantlng perxaission to tlie parties concerned to amend fhe pleadlrigs, adduce furtlier evidence, file docujments or get the documents verified ete. and orily thei-eafter, tlie decision afl-esh m respect oftlie UablUty to pay compensatlon s^laIi be made. Any ofher issue, if involved, may also be fi-amed. 10. Tiie i-ecords oftlie Claims Tribunal shaU be sent back wifliout delay. 11. The amouiit deposlted by tlie appeUant/Iusiirance Compaiiy s^laIl be allowed to be wlthdi'awn. However, if the amouiit is aliieady disbui'sed, the same shaM not be x'ecovered atid wiU be subject to (he declsion made afresli. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G.MinhaJuddin Judge