's^-,'0% s^( ^^' (*'"C1^^1"> ,,..>^>l-ST3' •:"'^"ArffcAft S!!»ngi?^i S/o. Shankar Lal Dewangan, aged about 35 years, R/'o. Sharda Chowk, Gariyaband, P.S. & Tahsil Gariyaband, District; ^M£l/y (C.G.) :1. 2. Mohammad Shamim, S/o. Mohammad Khalil, Caste- Musalman, aged about 41 years, R/o. Rahmaniya Chowk, Sadar Ward Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Mohammad Hafiz, S/o. Mohammad Khalil, Caste-Musalman, R/o. Rahmaniya Ch.owk, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, National Insurance Company Limited Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AWARD AMOUNT VALUATION OF THE PRESENT APFEAL Rs.3,81,000/- Nil Rs.3,81,000/- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. fC) No. 1599 of 2008 AppeUant Pushpak Versus Respondents Mohauuaad Shajaiim & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & HonTale Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Aviaash Chand Sahu, Advocate for fhe appeUant. Shri Aaaad Kiunar Gupta, Advocate for fhe respondent No.3. ORDBR fOraB ( Passed on this 16th day of Novembcr, 2009 ) Heard. This appeal arises Irora the award dated 24.7.2008, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tnbuual, Gariaband, Distnct - Ralpur in Claim Case No. 37/2007. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that accordiag to fhe appeUaat, on 20.9.2007 at 3.15 p.m. he was goiag on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. C. G. 04-ZR/2795, &om Gariabaad to Ralpur, at that inonient, near Rajim Gaushala, a mini Bus, beanag registration No. C.G. 04/ZA 0479, being driven by the respondent No.l, hit the niotorcycle fioin the back side, as a result ofwhich fhe appeDant/claunaat received severe iajuries, aad as such, he filed a claun case for coinpeusation. Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, learaed counsel appearfng for the appeUant submits that alfhough leamed Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to fhe rash and negUgent driviag of fhe driver of the mini Bus and rejected the objection of fhe respondents that fhe iasurauce coinpauy of fhe inotorcycle was a necessaiy party, but disinissed fhe claun of fhe appeUant on fhe grouxid that he was not having the efiFective and valid driving licence. The Tribunal, wifhout exanuning all the aspects of fhe matter, has rejected fhe claim on the sole groiuid fhat siuce fhe inotorcycle was driven by the appefflant without haviag aa effective and valid dnving Uceace, fherefore, he was negl^ent aud as such he was not aatifled to any compensation. 6. 8. 9. 10, 11, Shri Anand Kuinar Gupta, learaed counsel appearing for the respondeut No.3, supportiiig the award, subnuts that it was fhc burdeu of the appeUant to prove that he was haviag an effective and valid driving licence, which the appeUant has failed to dischai^e by not producing cppy offhe saine. Haviag heard learaed counsel appeariag for fhe parties and haviag perused the documents appended thereto, it is evident that fhe submission of the appeUant was that he was having a leaming driviag licence. Even ofherroise, since it was held by the Tribunal that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negUgent driviag of fhe driver of fhe mmi Bus, which tut the inotorcycle fi'om the back side, examiaing the actiou of the appellaat in driviag the m.&toreycle with or without a driviag Ucnece, appears to be munaterial. The claim of fhe appeUant was thrown out on a simple ground that the appeUant was driving fhe motorcycle wifhout having aa effective aad vaUd driviag Ucnece, fherefore, he was not entitled to any compensation. Thus, the impugaed award is not sustainable in law. In view of fhe foregouig, fhe impugaed award dated 24.7.2008 is set-aside. Siace the determination was uot made with regard to fhe grant of coinpensation, fhe inatter is reiaaaded back to fhe Tnbunal for a fi-esh consideration and determiuation of the compensation, in accordaace with law, on its OWD. nierits. The Tribunal niay consider ofher evidences atso, if adduced by the parties. The parties are peruutted to adduce additional evidences, if so advised. The observations, if aay, made hereiaabove, shall not be construed as our opiaion on nierit. The appeal is aUowed to fhe above extent. No order asto costs. The Regfatry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioued froin fhe Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- N.K.Agarf/al Judge Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur