(^ 'ffiStSS K&3SS IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR c- £~ JVLISC. APPEALNO. &7^ OF 2006 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 QF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appellant Non-Applicant no. 3 Respondents w/ Mf /l3..->^:'^v Versus 1.p United India Insurance Company Limited, 7, Vivek Verdhan Seva Ashram Trusfe Complex, New Mandi Road, Mahasamund, through Divisional Office, Jail Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Rakesh Kumar Nirmalkar, S/o Itwari Ram Nirmalkar, R/o Rajim Amapara, Shivaji Chowk, Pokhra Road, P.S. Rajim, Distt. Raipur (Driver of Vehicle No. CG-04/ZD-5343 Non-Applicant No. 1 2. c- Khilesh Sahu, S/o Rewaram Sahu, aged about 15 years, through Guardian father Bhookhelal Sahu, aged about 51 years, R/o Ward No. 2, Mela Ground, Rajim, Distt. Raipur (CG) Registered owner of vehiele CG-04/ZD- 5343 Non-Applicant no. 2 3. Smt. Vimla Bai W/o Late Rambagas Sahu, aged about 40 yers 4. f\ Gopal, S/o Late Rambagas ^\ Sahu, aged about 20 years ,(Both R/o Village - Bakli, P.S. Rajim, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Claimants Claim in Appeal for setting.aside the award, valued at Rs. 14,31,000/- (Rupees Forteen Lacs Thirtv One Thousand onlyl i3i HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MANINDRA MOHAN 8HRIVA8TAVA, JJ M.AICI. No. 675 of 2006 Vs. Rakesh Kumar Nirmalkar and others APPEAR&NCE: Mr. Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for the appeUauts. Mr. Shivendu Paudya, counsel respondents 3 & 4. Per I.M. QUDDUSI ORDER (ORALt (21.10.2010) 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insuraace Coinpany against impugaed award dated 07.09.2006 passed by fhe First Addl. Motor Accident Claiais Tribunal, Raipur, ia Claun Case No.56/2006 whereby the liability has been fastened on fhe Insurance Coinpany. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claunaut are that Ram. Bagas Sahu(deceased) was au einployee of fhe Chhattisgarh Electricity Board. Ou 23.02.2005 at about 5.00 p.in. he was goiag iu a Tempo Trax beariag Regn.No.C.G.04-ZD/5343 finm Raipur to village Kayabandha. It is alleged that because of rash and uegUgent drivittg ofrespondent no.'l the said Teinpo had turaed turtle, as a result of which Ram Bagas Sahu sustained injuries on storuach, Chest, head aud there was serious iujury on tus private part. He was adinitted iu Ramakrisluia Hospital, Raipur where operation was conducted twice on his private part aad during the course of treatment, Iie died on 07.4.2005. The deceased was workmg as Imeiuau ia C.G. Electa-icity Board aad was drawiag a inonthly salaxy of Rs. Rs. 12,386/-. The claimaats being legal heirs ofthe deceased ruade claun enuinerated u/ s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, '^ ^^ APPELLANT United India Insurance Conipany Limited y^ ^ia 1988 clamung com.pensation of Rs.19,82,484/- on differcnt heads. The Tribunal has held that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negUgeut driviag of its driver, as a result ofwhich, Ram Bagas (deceased) has died during the course of treatnient aad at the tiine of accident, the driver was haviag vaUd and eflFective dnviag license. The Tribunal has awarded a total coiapensation of Rs.14,31,000/- which the claimants are especiatly entitled to receive fium the appeUaat Insurance Conipany. The owiier aad driver are also held to be liable to pay coiapensation. Siace there is no permission u/s 170 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, the appeal ui respect of quantuni is not inaiataiuable. However, leamed counsel for the appeUant has raised fh.e grouad fhat the vehicle was insured with limited Uability to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh, therefore, the amount awarded to the tune of Rs.14,31,000/- is not payable by the Insurance Coinpany aad on fhis ground also, he has chaUenged fhe liabilily. Siace fhe leamed Tnbunal has not considered the extent of liability of the iasurance Coinpany, therefore, we thiak it appropriate to reinit the inatter back to the Tribuaal conceraed for deciding fhe claim petition afl'esh. In view of fhe above, we set aside fhe impugaed award dated 07.09.2006 and reiuit the inatter back to the Tribunal for decyiag the claim petitiou afi1esh after providiag opportuiuty of heariug to the pardes concemed and to adduce further cvidence, if any. The records of the Tribuital shatl be sent bacfc forthwith. Wifh fhe above observation/direction, this appeal stands disposed of. ^ Sd/- l.M.Q<iddusi Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Rao