<li J.pn ^ -»••".*/ . -i- £NTHE HON'BL^ HIGH COURT OF CHUAmSGARH AT BILASPUR ^ APPELLANT {Non-ADDiicant No.3) Misc. Appeal (aNo. ^^7 /2011 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divjsional Office, Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur, represented through Sr. Divisiona! Manager, Divisional Office, Geetanjaii Bhawan, Main Road, Korba (6.G.). ' Versus RESPQNDENT•^^•-:1. ^ ,/y/^.' ^/y//<c <...4^ ^°>y/ ,--y <<>yy .^ •^ Smt. Madhurilata Thakur, W/o Shri B.S.Thakur, aged about 47 years, 2. Bhupendra Stngh Thakur, D/o Ekdashiya Singh, aged 50 years, Note: Both Respondents No. 1 and 2 are residents of Rajapara Champa, P.S. Champa, T^hsil/Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.). Udaybhan Yadav, S/o Rajdhari Yadav, aged about 37 years, r/o viliage Sidhve, P.S. Takulab, Distt. Devariya (U.P.), Presentiy r/o Jelgaon Chowk, Near CSEB Cotony, Korba (C.G.). Ghanshyam Rathore, S/o Shri Gangaram Rathore, aged about 49 years, r/o viliage Gurpa, P.Q. Sarhara, P.S. Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir 3. 4. ChampaJC.G.). ^'> T -2. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. /F^':^ '^ .3|| ^.'^z^.\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUH M.A._IC|,NO. 687 OF 2011 APPBLLANT/ REBP01-IDBHTS Tlie Oiieiital IiisLii'aiice Co. Ltd. ¥ersiis Smt. Madhm-ilata Tliakm- aiid others, SECTIGN 173 GF MOTOH VEHICLBS r; . ACT, Di^-isiosa BeBcIi^Ho2i<'bIe Shri l.M.. Qiiddasi & Hoss»b!e G. JJ. Preseiit; SIid R.N. Pusty, counsel for tlie appellaiit. •Sl-u-i Aiiil GuJa.ti, comisel for the.< Respondents No. 1 & 2. " :; Shri Somkant Verma, comisei for the respondent No.4. OHAL (Passed oss 13th day efOctober, 2011| Per I.M. Quddiasi, J. This appeal has bee.n filed by the appellant/Iusurance Compaiiy agauist tlie impugned awai'd dated 10-03-2011 ,ft.. passed by the Addltlonal Motor Accident Clalms Tribunal, Saktl, Dlstiiet Jaiijgli'-Chanipa (for slior-t <the Clalms Tribmial1) in Claim Case No.61/2007, in so fai^as It relates to fasteulng -the Ilablllty to pay compensatlon upon it, to tlie claliiiaiits. 2, Brief facts of tlie case as per version of the claliriatits are fhat non-appllcaiits No. 1, 2 8& 3 were driver, owner and Insurer of ti.ie offendiiig vehicle. On 22-04-2007, deceased Abhishek Siiigh WSLS golng on lils motorcycle from SaMI to Chaiiipa along wlth his frleud. When they reached Vlllage Suadera, .near Pollce Station Sakli situated at flie National Highway, he was dashed by flie offendmg veliicle-Bus Jjeaiing registratioii No. C.G. 10-G/0247 which was driven by Uie driver of the Bus, m !.i ! ..^A""^ €^ a r-ash aiid negligent mai-uier. In fliat. accident, Abliishek Suigh sustaiiied gi-ievous injuiies aiid died on tlie spot. Report of the iacident was given to the Pollce Station, Sakti,. the offence was reglster-ed agauist tlie iion-applicaiit No.l/driver aiid after- mvestigation, chai'ge-sheet was filed in the Coml of Judlcial Magistrate First Class, Saktl, 3. The claiiiiaiits bemg legal heirs/dependeiits of tlie deceased had flled a petition •under\ Section 166 of tlie Act before tl~ie Claliiis Tribuiial ciaimlng a tot^l ainouiit of compensation ofRs.21,25,000/- for- the death ofthe deceased. 4. The leaiTied Claiins Tribunal on a close scrutiny of tlie evidence led, material placed aiid submissions made by flie pai'ties, has awai'ded a total sum of Rs.4,92,500/-, under vai-ious heads, to the clalmaiits. • :.; 5. We have heai'-d leai'ned counsel for tiie pai'ties, perused the record of the lower Court as well as the inipugned awai'd. 6. It appeai's Uiat tiie appellaiit moved aii applicatlon for recording evidence of the R.T.O., Devai'iya, tlii'ougli Coiiimission. As nobody was attendmg tlie Com-t, tiie Court allowed tiie application aiid appoiiited tlie Commlssion but as the curfcw was imposed m the uiontli ofJaiiuaiy^ tlierefore, tlie couiisel refused to go there iii such a tense situation. Thereafter, on 5-3-2011, aiiotlier application was moved for the purpose aiid reseryatioii was made for goiiig to Devaiiya 011 9-3-2011 aiid to r-etuiTi back on 11-3-2011 but tlie learned Tribunal has r-ejected tlie applicatlon aiid closed the right of opportunity to produce the evidence. 7. In view of tlie above^ we ,ai"e of the opliiioii tliat when flie sltuation did not allow tiie pailies to go to Devai'lya as cui'iew was Imposed aiid- the ti'ains do not go dally trom RaiptU' to' Devariya aiid therefore, advaiice resei'vation was macle Ibr 9-3- 2011, the Clahiis Tribunal should not have rejected tlie oppor-tunity to fhe appellaiit/Insui'ance Compaiiy vide order- ti t ;:$'.^ '^ ':^ 1g rb datecl 5-3-2011, as it was a Biatter of few days. Therefore, we ai-e of tlie opinion that ti.ie appellaiit could not get adequate opportumty to defend itself. 8. In view of tiie abov'e, in oui' opiiiion tlie appeal is liable to be allowed lu pail. Accordiiigly, we allow llie appeal in pail, set aside flie impugned awai'd aad reiiiit tiie matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall allow the appellaiit/'Insuraiice Compaiiy to lead evldence tlii-ough the Comniission. Thereafter, a decision shall be taken afresh. 9. The pai~ties shall appeai' before ^tlie CIalms Tdbmial coucemed on 30-11-20 11. 10. Record of tlie Claims Tribuual shall be sent back wltliout fuilher delay. 11, No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge K^T