\ IN THE mOH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BHASPUR (C.01 M.A.(C) No. .ll.l19, OF 2007 (APPEALVALOED AT Rs 4.^3^767-') APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEmCLES ACTS. 1988. -r APPELLANT (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) ^^ y ?E-S ^Q'H-PE-HT.S. (APPLICANTNO.l) y (APPLICANTN0.2) (APPLICANT N0.3) (AIS1.ICANTN0.4) (APPLICANT1S0.5) (APPLICANT N0.6) ^ ;::: (APPLICANTN0.7) (APPEICANTNQ.8) (NQN-APPLICANT N0.1) Tnited India Insurance Company Lunited, Through: Its Branch Manager, Branch- Oflice,Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur(C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Kaushilya Bai Wd/o-Late f—Pardeshii^mNishad, Aged- about 40:years; '[;:''' ', '' •,: •• : ^ .Ruta Ni Rukmani D/Q-Late Pardeshiram Nishad, , Aged about-30 years, • :, , ; ' :3^ Sukhmani D/0-Late;Pardeshiram Nishad, , Aged about-28 years, A^ Urmilai D/O-Late Pardeshiram ^ Nishad, ,Agedabout-26years, 5< PramilaD/Q-Late Eaideshirami Nishad,, Agedabout-24 years, "6. Ku.Buldu D/Q-Late Pardeshiram Nishad,; Aged about-15 years, AnandS/O-LateBardeshiram Nishaxl, Aged ahout-12 years, > .S. PSrnaiiaad S/0-LatePardjeshiram ^•----",'•^',:'.•;":,•..\:,-.--T:;-;:\^';';' ::, •:':;..':-:^7 ." . "^•'-- ••";'. ' '^ Nishafl, Agetf about-09 years, Respondent no 6 tp 8 1 are mmor, fhrough fheir Moths- Smt. Kaushilya jBai (iBSpondeBt no.l), iiattnal guaraiEm, :' ! •..':;,.^-^:.'SAll' .sse^^lO-'vSt.-^^ssesaSa.f . 1 P.S.-Kflasturii ^;I3listt.-Btl8s@iffi ^.^MS^St^^.l^Bwff^^^f^ ^^|hmad,l jage<}-42^yea ||J|^|^^^JJ ^^L' ^ Vill. & Post-Barela,Tah.- Mungeli, Distt.-Bilaspur (CG) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR.I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. M.A. M No. 442/2007 ^ Appellant Non-apDlicant No.2 Respondents/ Applicant No.1 Vs United India Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur (CG) Smt. Kaushilya Bai and others •!>"' Present: Mr. Dashrath Gupta, counsel for theappellant/insurance company. Mr. R. Dayal Shrivastava, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5. >th ORDER (Orall li: (6"'September,2011) ! Per I.M. Quddusi. J; This appeal has been filed by the appellant/insurance company against the award of thei Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (inshort "the Tribunal") dated 23rd November, 2006 passed in Claim Case No.92/05, insofar as it has fastened the liability to pay compensation on the appellant/insurance company. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 4.4.2005 Pardeshi Nishad, who was working on the post of Assistant Operator in Irrigation Department, Sakri, was going to Bilaspur from Sakri by traveling in Bus bearing registration No. CG 10/A-3438. While Pardeshi Nishad was getting off the bus atSakri, on account of suddenly driving the bus by the driver fast, Pardeshi Nishad fell down from the busand sustained grievous injuries on the back of his head and fell unconscious and died ultimately. Report of the accident was lodged in Police Station : Chakarbhata, whereupon driver of the bus was arrested and the bus was seized. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver before the concerned Court. 3. At the time of accident, the deceased was 50 years. He was working as Assistant Operator in Irrigation Department, Sakri and getting Rs.5,625/- per month. Therefore, the claimants, who are widow 2- f>y and childrenofthedeeeased.beinghislegalheirsfileda claimpetition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ,1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") claiming a total compensationof Rs.18,35,000/- for the death of Pardeshi Nishadundervariousheads. 4. However, learned Tribunal,after close scrutiny of theevidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the parties, awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,43,976/- by fastening the liability upon the appellanVinsurance company. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the lower court record (LCR) as wellas the impugned award. Learned counsel for the appellant/insuranGe company has submitted that driver of the bus in question was not made a party before the Tribunal by the claimants and the driving licence of the driver was notavailable, therefore, in such a situation, the insurance company has wrongly beenfastenedwith the liability to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act and Rule 226 of the CG Motor Vehicles Rules, provide thatthe Tribunal shall conduct anenquiry to peterminethe fact in respect ofaward ofcompensation. Therefore, we ^ire of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in treating the laim petitionas acivil suit and deciding thesame onlyon the basisof pleadings or the evidenceadduced by the parties. 8. Sinceit is also doubtful as to whether on the date of accident the bus in question was being driven by Narendra Nirmalkar or Laxmi Prasad Pandey, the Tribunalshould have conducted a proper enquiry Ito ascertain the fact and also if the driver was not having ayalid and jeffective drivinglicence, theinsurancecompanyshouldnothavebeen [held liable to pay compensation. The ihsurance cpmpanyisliable to paycompensationonlyincasewherethedriverwashavingavalidand 'effective driving licence and the vehicle, which was a commercial vehicle, was having a valid fitness certificate and alsp a permit, if required for that vehiele under the law. Therefore, in the factsand circumstances of the ease, in our opinion, the matter requires recohsideration attheend oftheTribunal. ^sx^ J^" ,.i-Sisis;-^^ s' ^- • '"^. ff &. "' 8&s<»»» % 3 9. In the result, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the claims Tribunal to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity ofhearing to the parties, inthe light ofthe observations made above. 10. Needless to mention that the parties shall also be allowed to amend the pleadjngs, adduce further evidence, file documents and get the documents verified etc. and thereafter, fresh findings sliall be given by the Tribunal andaward shaH be passed afresh. The Tribunal shall also conduct an enquiry into the claim for determining the just compensation as provided under Sections168 & 169 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 226 ofthe CG Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. 11. The amount which has been deposited by the insurance company shall be refunded tothe appellant/insurance company andif the amount has already been paid to the claimarits, the same shatl be subject to the decision to be taken afresh by the Tribunal. 12. PartiesshallappearbeforetheTribunalon12 October, 2011. 13. LCR shall be sent back to the Tribunal without further delay. 14. No order as to costs. /< ^ Judge G.Minhajjudin Judge ^ •\\ \\