IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 439/2005 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant. Versus Pan Singh and another …. Respondents. Sri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Ashish Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Sri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Dated: 16-12-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, arises out against the judgment and award dated 22-7-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Chamoli, in MACT Case No. 45/2004, Pan Singh Vs. Rajesh Ballabh Dimari and another. 2- The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that claimant Pan Singh filed a claim petition for compensation in lieu of damages caused to his house and household goods in a motor accident on 1.2.2004. According to the claimant, on 1.2.2004, he along with his wife, boarded the Truck bearing registration No. UA-07- E- 3215 in village Paini at about 2.00 P.M. The driver of the said Truck by his rash and negligence pulled down the truck over the house of the claimant, due to which the house as well as the household goods kept inside the house, were damaged and his wife also sustained injuries. The claimant got assessed the damages from the Assistant Engineer P.W.D. through S.D.M. Joshimath. He, therefore, filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 6,22,000/- against the owner as well as insurer of the offending truck. 2 3- The owner of the Truck No. U.A. 07-E- 3215 contested the claim by filing his written statement, denying the averments made in the petition. He also alleged that the Truck was possessing valid documents and the driver was having valid and effective driving license. He further alleged that the Truck was insured with Oriental Insurance Company and the liability of compensation, if any, is there, the same is upon the insurer of the vehicle. 4- The opposite party/Oriental Insurance Company also filed its written statement before the Tribunal denying the contents of the petition. The insurance company alleged that the driver of the offending truck was not having valid driving license. It is further alleged that the information of the accident was not given to the insurance company, hence, the damages caused to the claimant could not be assessed by the surveyor of the insurance company. The insurance company in view of above facts, alleged that the claim petition against it, is liable to be dismissed. 5- The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed issues in the claim petition. Thereafter the learned Tribunal on considering the evidence of parties and having heard learned counsel for the parties, allowed the claim petition for a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, against the opposite party/Oriental Insurance Company. 6- Feeling aggrieved, the Oriental Insurance Company has preferred this appeal before this Court. 3 7- Heard Sri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company, Sri Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for claimant/respondent No.1, and Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for owner/respondent No.2 and perused the record. 8- The short controversy involved in this case is as to what is the statutory liability of the Insurance Company under the provision of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act towards the damages caused to the property of the claimant. 9- Learned counsel for the Insurance Company/appellant has submitted that it is a case of property damage and the statutory liability of the insurance company is up-to the limit of Rs. 6,000/- only, unless extra premium is paid by the insured in this regard. 10- Learned counsel for the owner/respondent has submitted that neither any plea has been taken by the insurance company before the Tribunal, nor any issue has been framed before the tribunal, nor this point has been agitated before the Tribunal, hence the owner did not have any opportunity to adduce the evidence in support of his defence. 11- It is quite clear that it is a case of property damage and the record reveals that no extra premium has been paid by the insurer, hence the liability of the insurance company would be up-to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- only in view of the specific provision given under Section 147 (2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4 12- The liability to pay the amount of compensation beyond Rs. 6,000/- would rest on the shoulder of the owner of the offending vehicle, but as the issue has not been framed and decided by the tribunal and the owner had no opportunity to adduce the evidence in support of his defence before the tribunal, therefore, I am of the view that it is a fit case which should be remanded back to the tribunal concerned in order to decide this controversy afresh. 13- Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is set aside. The tribunal concerned is directed to decide the controversy involved in this case with regard to statutory liability of the insurance company only, in the light of the evidence available on record. However, the tribunal is at liberty to provide an opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence, if any, on the point in issue. The tribunal is further directed to decide the claim petition expeditiously and without causing any unreasonable delay. 14- The statutory amount deposited with this court at the time of admission of appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. If the amount deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company, is found to be in excess by the tribunal, then the same shall be returned to the insurance company. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB