\v BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF^JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHL Misc. Appeal (Cl No. [e^ ypf2008 Appellant Respondent No.l/Claimant Respondent No.2/Claimant Respondent No.S/Claimant The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through the Divisional Manager, Main Road, Korba Vs. Smt. Guruvarin Bai, aged 32 TL years, w/o oflate Horilal Sahu. : ,/L Shankarlal, s/o late Horilal aged 5 years. Suresh Kumar, s/o Horilal, aged 3 years. 'Oi.P.S ^ /i Respondents No. 2 & 3 are minors through their natural guardian B^-^'^'^n ...NJ^^-''^ mother respondent No~1 Smt. p^es®"lttu"-' t.o.^Sii^^'y Guruvarin Bai. resident of vil ^lv"~ ' IL .T3.—iil°° sd...---""1 Respondent No.4 & 5 L.Rs of the Dnver Respondent No.5 Respondent No.G/owner Guruvarin Bai, resident of village Pahanda - Urga Dist. Korba (C.G.) Lakhanlal, son of not known, aged 45 years. Smt. Badri Bai, wife of late Ramesh Kumar, aged 23 years, resident of Gokul Ganj, Sitamarhi, Korba. Ram Karan Sahu, s/o shri P.R. sahu, resident of L.I.G. 73, Sharda Vihar, Korba (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR ^EHICLES ACT AGAINST THE ORDER/AWARD DATED<15.11.2007 PASSED BY THE 2nd ADDITIONAL'IVIOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (F.T.Cl KORBA PRESIDED OVER BY SHRI S.K.SONI IN C.T. N0.15/2006 <"' ^ L — ^ t".;l~:- .'J^^ ^' AfiEellaat Res&pnid^its DSVSSSON SE^CIS: HON'BLE MR. I.IVI.QUDDUSI B HON'BLE NR. CHUl.AIV! N*NHAJUleD*N.J^;' . . . . . ' The Orientallndia Insurance Co. Ltci. Vs ,....„.. Smt. Gumvann Bat & others Present: Mr. Abhishek Stnha, Advocate tbr the appeliant. Mr. G. Devangan, Ack'ocate for respondents No.1 to 3. OROISR. (Orsdl (14tnJu»i^2811). S,M,....^y<ldusi,J; 1. Heard. 2. The appeUanMnsurance Company has ffled this miscellaneous appeaj under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (for short •th©Act') ag&lnst the award dated 15.11.2007 passed by leamed 2"" Addttlonal Motor Accjdents Claims Tribunal, RC. Korba (CG) (for short the Ctajms Tribunar) in Claim Case No. 15/2006 partly allowing claim applicatiion ot the clajmiant. 3. Facts ot the case, in brief, are that on 5.1 1.2004 the deceased was retuming to hls vliljage in a jeep. Due to rash anal negKgient arivlng by its driver, tlhie saia jeep met with an accident near Jogi Nala, VINagie Pansori as a re^ult the deoeased died on the spot. The ciaimants, \^io are iegai representatsves otthe deceased, have flled a claim petltion seektngi compensation to the tune of Rs.36,60,000/- under various heads on the ground that that they wer@ dependents on the deceased, who was the sote eaming memfcwr in family, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. 4. The Claims Tribunal partly allowed the Glaim appticatlon of the elaimants, awarded a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- as oompensation and fastened liabiKty on ttie appeMant-lnsurance Company to paythe compensatjon. 5. We have heard tearned counsel for the parties and perusect the impugneci order as also records ofthe Claims Tribunai beiow. 6\ Perusal of the record shows that first ijnformation report was todged fey the driver ofthejeep beartng registration number C012-8038 in wrtiieh It has been mentioned that besides deceased, two other persons have sustained injuries in tfte said accident and they were admjtted in the hosprtai under ttiie syper^jsion ot Dr. Sanjeet Slngh. It was also mentioneol that wooden structure ot the rigftt sicile ot the jeep i,e. driver side, was broken and this fad: o sygge^lve ofthe ^-.-"HppF-r- ^'_^i%, —^it, '"'r^'v^. ^^ ^ fact an accident wMti unknown vehtole had taken place. It has also come in the report that ttie deceased was sitUng on the left slde cS the jeep. Hte)we\^r, a diiferent story has been narrated inthe claim petiiUon. Further, when It has come on recond that m the same accident two ottier persons were injured andadmitted in the hospital under the supervtslon of Dr. Sanjeet Singh, the Claims Trtbynal should have summ<med the re^ord from the hospttai concerned and should have enquired about tfieir nam^anci treattnent filiven to them andthereafter shoutd have summoned ttiem in the wifiniess box to asceriain the truth for the reason that fitst jnformation report was lodged t>y the driver of the jeep jn quesUon who being the interest^ witness woutd ncA teil his fault. In these circumstences. we are crf the opinion that it was ttie flt case where the Claims Tribunal should have conducted the eBquiiy into the ctajn'i, especially when Sections 168 & 169 of the Act and Rute 226 of the Motor Vehlcies Rutes provide so. 7. In view of the above, we are of ttie <tpinlwi that the matter requlres reconsideration at the end ofthe Tribunat. 8. Accordjngjy, we allow the (nstant appeat in part, set aside the award dated 15.11.2007 passed in Claim Case No.15^006 by the Ctatms Tribunai anct remit the matter back to the Ctaims Tribunal for decision afresh. The Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evjdence.iy any, and shall follow the provistons of Sectlons 168 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 226 ofthe Rul^ in deciding tiie ctaim petitlon. The |»rUesshall atso be entitted to amend the pleadings and frte or verMy the documents already flled. 9. The parties are directed to appear befere ttie Clalms Tribunal coneemed on 25in Julv. 2011 either tn person or through their counsel. The Claims Tribunal shall also issue notices to the respondents concerned wrtio are nct present before this Court today. Needless to mention that amount, which has already been deposited by the appellant-lnsurance Company and yet not cli^>ursed to the claimante, shatl not be eittier refunded to the appellant or disbursect to the clajmante till the decision is taken afresh by the ClaKns Tribunat. 10.The Registry is directed to transmit the record of the Clairm tribunai concerned without further delay. 11 .Certified copy as per rutes. j Roshan/- Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge