^ ^ a. l^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) No.-^^ <2ee9^.^. APPELLANT ^: ....••••^s^':. •n .-••" .—a;.*"' •^.^' 7°' Divisi THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, AMBIKAPUR DISTRICT SURGUJA C.G. THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BILASPUR. Vrs, RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS :-1. SMT. GANGOTRI BAI W/0 LAXMAN RAM SINGH, AGE 40 YRS., 2. 3. 4. LAXMAN RAM SINGH S/0 JHUNURAM, AGE 45 YRS., JAYANTI BAI D/0 LAXMAN RAM SINGH, AGE 20 YRS. ALL RESIDENT POLICE LINE COLONY TIFRA, TAHSIL <& DISTRICT BILASPUR C.G. SHIVSHANKAR S/0 SITARAM PANDAY, AGE 35 YRS. RESIDENT PATHAKPUR, TAHSIL SURAJPUR DISTRICT SURGUJA C.G. 5. ARVIND S/0 RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL, RESIDENT BASANT ROADWAGE AMBIKAPUR, DISTRICT SURGUJA C.G. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEmCLE ACT 1988 HIG1HCOURT OFCHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI &. Hoa'ble G. 3HISHAJUDDIS, JJ APPBLLANT: RESPONDBNTS: [. A(C). Mo. 223/2010 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sint. Gangotri Bai aad others MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,1988 Appearance: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the appeUaat. Mr. Ainritodas with Miss Tanushree Das, counsel for Respoadent No.5. ORAL ORDBR (08.12.2011) Per I.M. QUDDUSI, J. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Coinpany agauist fhe impugned award dated 26.08.2009 passed by fhe Second Additional Motor Accident Claans Tribunal Bilaspur, Distnct Bilaspur (C.G) ia Claim Case No. 194/2008 in so far as it has fastened Uabflily on the appeUaa.t to pay coiiipensatio-' to the clamiailts. 2. The facts of fhe case as pei fhe version of fhe claimants are -that on 21.4..?008 deceased Madaa Singh was traveling ia Mini Bus bearmg Regn.No.C.G.15-A/5015. Respondent No.4 Shiv Shaakar was driving fhe said Bus iu rash aad negUgent inanner and on account of his rash aud negl^ent driviag, fhe Bus overturaed near Chiraighat, as a result of which, the deceased who was an occupant of fhe Bus has sustaiued grievous iajuries aad died. He was worknig as PoUce Constable and was drawing a inonthly salaiy ofRs.7741/-. The claiinants beuig dependents/legal representatives have filed clahn petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, for fhe award of a total coiupensation ofRs.22,34,560/- onvarious heads. iiin^'T^ ;-1_— --d ^ 3. The leanied Clauns Tribunal haviuR regardiag to fhe facts situation bas held that the offendiug vehicle was involffed ia ffae accident ia wbich deceased Madan Siash died aad fhe claimaats are entitled to receive a total corupensation of Rs.8,62,000/- wifh interest @ 6% per annum. 4. Leamed counsel for tiie Insuraace Coinpaay has subinitted fhat the driver offhe offending vehicle was not having valid aud effective drivtng licence on the date of accident, fhei-efore, fhe lusuraace Coiapany could not have been Uable to pay coiapeasation. S. We have heard learaed counsel for the parties and have also gone fhrough fhe record. Oa perusal of fhe record, we have fouud that fhe driver should have got driviag licence authorizing Tiim to drive PubUc Service Vehicle (PSV). However, Pawan Kumar Sahu who was worldng as Assista&t Grade-III ia fhe office of Regional Transport Officer, Ambikapur came into witness box as N.A.W.3, on behatfofthe Insurance Compaay, aad has stated that driver Sbiv Sharikar was haviag a driviag liceuce to drive LMV with effect &om 30th Noveinber, 2004 for which fee ainouitt ofRs.90/- was deposited on 25.11.2004. He was also granted drivitig licence to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) for which he deposited the fee amount of Rs.200/- on 01.08.2006. He has further stated fhat the deceased had deposited Rs.200/- on 12.06.2007 for driving PubUc Sendce Vebicle, but by mistake it has been laentioned as 12.6.2008, the'receipt number ofwhich was 54/155002. Therefore, here fhe question arises as to whether the driving Ucence to drive PSV should have been treated as effective fi-om 12.06.2007 or fi-om 12.06.2008. This is a relevaat question as the date of accident was 21.04.2008 and in the driving licence, it bas been shown fbat he was aufhorized to drive PSV with effect froin 03.05.2008. Therefore, a clarification is required for fhat purpose as tf the fees for driviag Public Service Vehicle was deposited on 12.6.2007 what was the reason to mention fbe date as 03.05.2008 and also fhat iffhe licence was issued with efifect from 03.05.2008 how the fee ,has been shown to be deposited at a later stage i.e., 12.6.2008 which is uot possible. -—~y-—-s- ^ ^- ^s?-... ..' /; '^ ~V^££SES^"'~ Under fhese circumstaaces, we are of ftie opinion that fhe same RTO official shatl be reexamiaed aad after gettmg clarification, the Tribunal shaU take a decision afresh. Therefore, the inatter requires reconsideration at the end ofthe Tribunal. 6. Hence, we aUow fhis appeal ia part aad .reiuit fhe inatter back to fhe Tribunal for decision afresh at the earliest in fhe light of the observations inade above. Leamed counsel for the appeUaut submits that the amount has already been deposited ia a fixed deposit. If fhat be so, fhe said amount shaU not be disbursed to the clainiants tffl fresh decision of the clami petition by fhe Tnbunal. 7. The parties sliaU. appe.ar before tfae Tribunal on 24th Jaauaiy, 2011. The recoids of fhe Tribuiial shall be sent back without further delay 8. In the result, the appeal is atlowed ia part. No onler as to costfs), Sd/- DR. I.M.Quddusi Judge ~Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao