H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA(C)No.1423 of 2008 Appeliant Non applicant No. 3. Respondents {ApoJicantNo.ll fAppSicant No. 2} (Applicant No. 3) fAppiicant No. 4) (Applicant No. 5) fNon- Appllcant No.11 fNon-ADolicant No.2) Nationai insurance Company Limited, through its Divisjonal Office. Taha Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (CG). Versus ' 1. Smt. Mamta Choudhari. Wd/o Ghanshyam Choudhari, aged 30 years. 2. Ku. Jyoti D/o Ghanshyam Choudhari, aged 11 years. 3. Ku. Preeti D/o Ghanshyam Choudhari, aged 9 years. 4. Ku. Triptee, D/o Ghanshyam Choudhari, aged 4 years. 5. Roshan, S/o Ghanshyam Choudhari, aged 1 year. Respondent No. 2 to 5 are minor, through their mother Smt. Mamta Choudhari (Respondent No. 1.). AII are R/o Village Bijna, P.S. Pusaur, Tah. & Distt. Raigarh (CG). 6. Nagendra Shah, S/o S. Shah R/o 26 Adeads, Street, Kolkata, 700019 (Owner). 7. Arjun Rai, S/o Jaslal Rai, aged 28 years,R/o 1 Blackbum Lane Kolkata 12(WestBengaI). APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 (SinaSe Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwai. J.) Present Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appeliant. Shri H.S. Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 5. None for respondent No. 6 & 7. ,A 1. 2. 4. ORDER (Passed on 17th day of April, 20Q9) Learned counsel forthe parties are heard on admission. The instant appeai has been preferred by the appeiiant/Insurance Company , challenging the award dated 25.07.2008, passed by the IVth Additiona] Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai (FTC), Raigarh, in Clalm Case No. 24/2006, whereby, the appiication of the ciaimant/respondent No. 1 to 5 has been allowed, and a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) has been awarded against the appelianVinsurance Company, under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') for 'No Fauit Liability. The contentlon of appeliant in this appeal is that the policy produced before the Tribunal is forged one and in fact the appeilanVlnsurance Company has not issued the poiicy of insurance, covering risk of the vehicie in question on the date of accldent. Learned counsel for the appeliant further submits that wlthout going into the merits of the contention raised by the appeiiant/Insurance Company, such award cannot be passed by the Tribunai. Learned counsel further submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunai i.e. Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand oniy) has aiready been deposited. He next submits that if this appea! is dlsposed of, teaving open the question of iiabiiity to pay compensation even under Section 140 of the Act, 1988, to be decided by the Tribuna!, at the time of final hearing of the t. / 8. ^ claim case No. 24/2006, then he has no objectlon. Shri Patei has no objection if the appeal is disposed of -wlth the aforesaid directlon. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, this appeal is disposed of ieaving open the question of liability of payment of compensation even ,under section 140 of the Act, 1988, for the decision of Tribunal along with final decision of c!aim case No. 24/2006. !t is further directed that the amount deposited by the appeilant/lnsurance Company under 'No Fault Uabillty', shal! not be disbursed to the claimants ti!l finai disposa! or the claim case and shali be kept in fixed deposit by depositing the same in any Nationaiized Bankfor a period ofoneyear. Record of Tribunal be sent back immediately and it is directed that on the receipt of record, the Tribunal shaii decide the ciaim case No. 24/2006 as early as posslbie, preferabiy within a period of three months Trom the date of receipt of record of ciaim case. Wlth the above observation, this appeal Is disposed of. No order asto costs. | g^ N. K. Agarwal Judge Sahu \ ••"