Partly allowed

Smt.Sukhmati v. Idrish Ali and Others

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2011MAC/86/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Misc. Appeals (C) Nos.86 of 2007 & 105 of 2008 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed both appeals, set aside the impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and remitted the matter for fresh assessment of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; impugned award set aside; matter remitted to Tribunal for fresh decision after adducing evidence.

Smt.Sukhmati Vs Idrish Ali and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

^ ^^

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

DIVISIQN BENCH

¶5

CORAM:	HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J.
	Misc. Appeal (0 No. 86 of2007
Appellant	: Smt. Sukhmati, aged 25 years, wife of Shri Jiya Lal Kashyap, resident of village Pendri, tahsil Janjgir &district Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

	VERSUS
Respondents	Idrish Ali, aged 26 years, son of Shri A. Haq, resident of village Aarimara Bahalpur, Police Station Sapur, district Dhuwri (Assam), at .present address Dhimrapur Chowk, Vinod Agrawal Transport, Raigarh, Tahsil and district Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Driver)
	Vinod Kumar, son of Shri S.N. Agrawal, resident of Tirupati Road Career, Dhimrapur ChOwk, Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Owner)
	The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Raigarh (Divisional ^Manager), Block Office, Sunday Market, Raigarh, district Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Insurer)
	Bhagat Ram aged 40 years, son of Shri Ram Bharos Kashyap, resident of Chaurabhata, police station Shivrinarayan, tehsil Nawagarh, districtJanjgir Champa C.G. (Owneroftractor) Byas Narayan, aged 40 years, son of Shri Sahukar Kashyap, resident of Budena, police station,Janjgir, tehsil Nawagarh, district Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh (Driveroftractor)

¶7

•^•^ \ "'v '^"'•-. ;'^ ^ ' '^ ^-^ ^ ^'

¶8

Misc. Appeals (C) Nos.86 of 2007 & 105 of 2008

¶9

Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act.

¶10

Present; Shri Somnath Verma, for the appellant. Shri Sushil Sahu, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Varun Dubey, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri R.R. Soni, counsel for respondent No.4.

¶11

Misc. Appeal (C) No. 105 of 2008

¶12

Appellant Vinod Kumar, son of S.N. Agrawal, Non-applicant aged about 40 years, occupation Business, resident of Tirupati Road Career, Dheemarapur Chowk, Raigarh, district Raigarh, C.G. VERSUS Respondents Md. Idrish Ali, aged 27 years, son of Shri A. Haque, resident of Aarimara Bahalpur, Dubri (Assam), at present r/o Dheemarapur Chowk, Raigarh, district Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Respondent/ Sukhmati, w/o Shri Jiyalal, aged Applicant about 25 years, resident of Pendri, tahsil Janjgir & district JanjgirChampa (Chhattisgarh) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Block Office, Sunday Market, Raigarh, district Raigarh Chhattisgarh Bhagatram aged about 40 years, son of Shri Rambharosh Kashyap, resident of Chaurabhata, police station Sheorinarayan, tehsil Navagarh, district Janjgir Champa C.G. Vyas Narayan, aged 40 years, son of Shri Sahukar Kashyap, resident of Budena, police station Janjgir, tehsil Navagarh, district Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

¶13

Misc. Appeals (C) Nos.86 of 2007 & 105 of 2008

¶14

"''^. u ^i]%Sl^ I! •^^/'•.f J/1 ' ''s^^'^:^^

¶15

Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act.

¶16

Present: Shri Sushil Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Shri Somanth Verma, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Varun Dubey, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri R.R. Soni, counsel for respondent No.4.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

nd (02naAugust,2011)

¶19

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶20

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶21

The impugned award dated 09.1 1.2006 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No.77/2005 has given rise to filing of these two appeals i.e. M.A.C. No.86/2007 and M.A.C. No. 105/2008. M.A.C. No.86/2007 is at the behest of claimant Smt. Sukhmati for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas M.A.C. No. 105/2008 has been preferrecTby the owner of the offending vehicle against the impugned award exonerating the insurer of the offending vehicle from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant.

¶22

It appears that as many as nine claim petitions were filed by different claimants befo.re the Tribunal arising out of the motor accident which took place on 19.10.2004, involving the two vehicles i.e. Dumper bearing registration No.C.G.13ZC-0172 and TractorTrolley bearing registration Nos. C.G.11ZC-2199 and C.G.11ZD2200. Vinod Kumar, the owner of the offending vehicle Dumper filed seven other appeals against the awards passed by the Tribunal in the other claim cases and those appeals were numbered as MA.C.

¶23

'i'^;".-;^'' .^,

¶24

Misc. Appeals (C) Nos.86 of 2007 & 105 of 2008

¶25

Nos. 804/2007, 805/2007, 806/2007, 1142/2007, 1415/2007, 1416/2007 and 87/2008. All these seven appeals were decided by a Division Bench of this High Court order vide dated 30.06.201 1 whereby all those seven claim cases were remitted to the Tribunal for decision afreshwith the following directions:

¶26

"10. In viewof the above, we allow these appeals,

¶27

filed by the owner namely Vinod Kumar, in part and set aside the impugned awards and remit the matters back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. It will be open for the Claims Tribunal to re-assess the of quantum

¶28

compensation afresh after framing issues in the light of observations made above and recording its finding thereon. All the claim petitions shall be consolidated and decided afresh."

¶29

The grounds taken by appellant Vinod Kumar in M.A.C. No. 105/2008 are almost the same which were taken by appellant Vinod Kumar in the above mentioned other seven appeals. 4) In this view of the matter, we deem it proper to remit this claim case also to the Tribunal for deciding the matter afresh in terms of the directions contained in the above quoted para 10 of the order dated 30.06.2011.

¶30

As the other appeal filed by claimant Smt. Sukhmati (M.A.C. No.86/2007) also arises out of the impugned award dated 09.11.2006, which is the subject matter of M.A.C. No. 105/2008 also, we deem it proper to further direct that the Tribunalshall assess the compensation afreshand claimant Smt. Sukhmati shall be at liberty to adduce evidence before the Tribunal.

¶31

¶32

Misc. Appeals (C) Nos.86 of 2007 & 105 of 2008

¶33

For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals i.e. M.A.C. Nos.86/2007 and 105/2008 are allowed. The impugned award dated 09.11.2006, passed in claim case No.77/2005 is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the claim petitiont afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties of adducing evidence in support oftheir case.

¶34

Registry is directed to send back the records immediately to the Tribunal.

¶35

No order as to costs.

¶36

Sd/Chief Justice

¶37

Sd/-
N.K. Agarwal
Judge

¶38

subbu

Smt.Sukhmati v. Idrish Ali and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Sukhmati v. Idrish Ali and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanhaiya Patel and Others Vs Chandram and Others

Smt Sheela Bai Yadav and Another Vs Tekbir Singh and Others

Smt Chandrika and Others Vs Ganeshwar Kumar Chandrakar and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Vs Md. Idrish Ali and Others

Smt. Ombati Singh and Ors. Vs Gurudayal Sinha and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Ahlawat and Anr. Vs Shatruhanlal Chaturvedi and Anr.