Allowed

Br.Manager,National Insu.Co. Ltd. v. Droupati Bai and Others

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jun 2012MAC/1254/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appeals against compensation awards were allowed in part. The High Court held that the Claims Tribunal failed to conduct a proper enquiry under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The awards were set aside, and the matter remanded for a fresh hearing with summoning of criminal records and eye-witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Impugned awards set aside; matter remanded to the Claims Tribunal to decide afresh after summoning criminal records and eye-witnesses.

Br.Manager,National Insu.Co. Ltd. Vs Droupati Bai… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)

¶3

	M.	AJC) No.t^ of2011
APPELLANT (tnsurer)		Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Gil Coraplex near Gurudwara Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
		Through Authorised Signatory National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office- B-l Taha Coniplex, Ring Road, Priya Darshani Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)
		Versys
RESPONDENTS (Claimants)	^l) "	Droupati Bai Wd/o Bhaddu Lal Aarmo Aged 36years
		Ku. SuranjanaAarmo, D/o. Bhaddu LalAarmo aged 15years (Minor)
		Ku. Lachhmi Aarmo, D/o. Bhaddu LalAarmo aged 14years (Minor)
		Lokesh Aarmo, S/o. Bhaddu Lal Aarmo aged 10years (Minor)
	^5)	Ameen Aarmo; S/o. Bhaddu Lal Aarmo aged 8years (Minor)
		Respondent No.2 to 5 are Minors through Natural Guardian inother respondent No. 1 Droupati Bai
	i96)	Smt. Jaggu Bai Wd/o.Sakru aged 75years
		All (respondent No. 1 to 6) are R/o. Ravabhata, Premnagar, P.S. Khamtarai, Raipur (C.G.)
Ipriver-Owner)	^7)	Dharam. Raj, S/o. Avadh Rani Chandrakar, aged 45 years, R/o. Banshipur, P.S. Bemetara, District

¶4

^ ^'

¶5

Durg Owner/ Driver of the ofFending vehicIeMaruti Van No.C.G 07 -M4317

¶6

MBMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988

¶7

-..__-._k

¶8

ifi I. 'iil'

¶9

HKSI GWR'rOFCHHATTISG&RH AT BItASPOR

¶10

M.A.(C1_N0.1254 6f20y

¶11

APPBLLANT BNSOBERi

¶12

Branch Mauager, Natunal Insuraace Coiapauy Liaiited.

¶13

Versus1-

¶14

RBSPOMDEHTS

¶15

Droupati Bai and others.

¶16

M.A.(C1 N0. 184 OF 2012

¶17

APPELLABT (mSORERI

¶18

Braoph ." Maaager, Natioaal Insifftace Compaay Umited.

¶19

VCTSUS

¶20

RESPONDBNT8 Jafhiya Bai aud othera.

¶21

APPE&L8 UNDBR SBCnON 173 OF THE MOTOR VBHICLES ACT

¶22

(Divisioa Beach: Hoa'bte Dr. I.Sa. Ouddusi & Hoa'ble Shrt G. SHa&adnddia, JJ.t

¶23

Pi-eseat : Shri B.N. Nande, counsel for the appeBant. Shri Samir Singh, counsel for rcspondents No. 1 to 6 ia M.A.(C) No. 1254/2011 and forrcspondcnts No.i to 3 in MA(Q No. 184/2012.

¶24

Shri Bharat Rajput, couasel for responden.t No.7 in MA(C) No. 1254 aiid for respoudent No. 4 ia MA(C) No. 184/2012.

¶25

ORALORDBR

¶26

(Psased on 12"' day ofjuae, 2012)

¶27

Per Dt.1. Quddusl. J.

¶28

M.A.(C) Nos.1254/2011 aud 184/2012 ai¥ beii^ disposed ofby tfais coiam&n order as bofh the appeals are arjsing out ofthe sauic accideiit.

¶29

BoBi fbese appeal (M.A.(C) Nos. 1254/2011 aad 184/2012) have beeu filed by the appeUant/Insuraaee Compaay ^aiust the awards dated 26-03-2011 passed ia Oaim Case Nos. 11/2011 aud 10/2011, by the Addltioaal Motor Accideat dauns Tfibuual, Beiuetara, Distdct Durg (for short tbe Claiias Tribunal^ &steiuug - - - -— liabflity upon it, to pay compeasation to ftie c]aima[its.

¶30

W^Hls"-"^^,.s

¶31

•spiBMB p3ii8ndOTT aqi se QaA SB iBimquj, sniTBtQ aipjo piooai •/, sip pasnjscr'sapjBd ai(t jcg issTTiioo psCTjBsi pcreaq aABq ay&

¶32

•TTOTCTsd aipjo 8uT[ij jo 3t»p aip wcuj lUtiuuy jad <%c) @ ^saTapn q)TA 8uo[B TTOS/OT •ON ssBQ TOTOIO TIT -/ooo'si'e-sa PUB TlOS/ll •ON 3S«> TOTBIO HT -/O00'/,9'fr!"sa jo •rons v papreMB seq 'sgpjsd 3Tp Aq apBOT siiOTSsrHrqns pire piooaTfno siqeyesB •psfjsysva 'paonpps sotrsprAS 'y 'j^CTnqTJj, swretQ •9 jo Arp.iuos asop v uo pairjBsi aqj,

¶33

¶34

•^irapToaB aip. xrr (paseaoap) ttSSFEre^ jo^{v[fs3paipjoj'noe/oroN3s®oTOTCIOrar-/OQO'SS'St-'s^} pHB (p3SB33Sp) IBItlpplBqg JO TpBSp 8TO JOJ TTOpBSTTadtirOO SE iioe/Ti 'ON 3S80 TftTBio OT -/ooo'se'os'sy gmroreio panjaoiroo IBiraqrJj,^{smreoaq^giiojaq} t886T^{<»OV»q»,Voqsjoj)} 886T^'V>V sg[on[3A Ja»o^ aq»jo 991 iTorpag jgfpnn STrop.p.ad itrreio a-(aredae p3{S peq pasBwwp gn^ jo sjiaq ySs^ gtrraq stxreroreio aqj, •s •jnoqeri se 8opproA Xq jfep jad -/OOK'SSI 8imTJB3 SBA pasBaoap 'lTTSpIOOBJO 3THT). 3TR W "OIOE-TT-/,S vto svcuss 3TR (4 paqTcmoons pire sgrjnfar snoAaij8 patiTe^sns qsgpire^ qorqA jo ipisar B SB 'jgnirenr ^uaSnSair pire qsej g tir 'tiraraq f'ON lirapirodsai Aq aaAiTp Sirpq SBM qarqA ZlSl'/pg-^O "O'O "ON CTor^j^STgar Sircresq vnsj^ Tfcwsyi sisifcpA 8uTpCT3j}6 wy. Xq paqssp SEA 3p>.&xsafWia pres svy. lv3[(eyi a'SeyiA JBSU 'SBJ& aq^ UQ •japTj troinrd se qoAkKq.oHi TIO iBpippsqa suo TpTA BITOIB B[pire^ 01 jndTey vaoj} 8irro8 SBM qsspireH passaoap '•va'S 00-8 "tnoqg IB OTOS -TT-8T vo ^mp areja-rq UT SVSB} eiOS/t-SI •ON foj'V'tM m •^ •WOSWCT 8®8a73[JOA.^q ^fepjgd -/oOG'sy 8tmTJ83 SBA aq pTTB gjreajC Qf P^SB SBA p3se303-p''3.Trap]r33B jo •svarr^ sfy yf •^ods atp uo pOTp pire sgpnfoT Bnoaap8 pamB»snsiBpippsqg ttOTqAjp tttisai i3 ss 'jsavwa yssSrftwi pvna qsisj v vn 'uraraq Z'o(i[ ^iiapiiodsai "O'O •ON. •(FOTtartSiSar Aq iraATJp garaq SBA qwqM ^.l&t'/W-AO gurjBaq trey^ Tttt.rei^ siwqaiA Surpuqgo aqi Aq paqsep SBA aipAaTOtoar piss aip^{'BIOBI^} aSBflTA jewi^'SBM. aip TTQ •3i[oAMOtOOT srq uo qsgpire}! aiio q^TM 8xioi{8 B[piren cq. jndrey woig 8mo8 SBA owjy IBinppeqB pasBwap '•wdoQ-g oqe IB OTOZ-TI-8T uo Tsqi W8 T TOZ; fWtt "QN b)'VW w SSBO gip jo sp^ jsrjg •e

¶35

¶36

-8. On perusal of t:he reeoxd, it appears fhat the deceased -Bhaddiilal waca driying tfae laaotofcycle but thc particitlars of the drwiag Ueeace have not been producrid. iPurfhcr, the Claims Tribiuial has not coaducted proper enquuy as piovided io Sectioas 168 aad 169 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 236 of the C.G. Moto^ Vehicle Rutes, 1994. The CIaims Tribtinal should have siiuuuoiied the xwx>rd of (he criuuaal case and should h&ve perused the aames of fhe eye witnesscs sbowa in tbc cbaigcsheet fited agaiust ttife driver of flie ' offeudiog velucle aad ;->> tfaereaftei', tfae eye wltnesses shoirid have beeu suniaioued for fbe piirpose of deternunlng the real facts which have yot been doue.

¶37

Hon'ble Apex Court in para 11 of its dccisun la the matter ofjiqpeumar vs. £jetffSumtv& mwtKef; reported ia 3010 (12) SC&LB, which is quoted as under.

¶38

;' '................................SectiQns 168 aad 169 ofthe Act jaaake it evident fhat the Tribuual dsies a&t fiinctiou as & neutral uinplre as in a cwfl suit, but as aa active exploiw and seeker of trutti who is xequued to 'hold an euquuy into the claiia' &r determiuing fhe 'just coxupeasatioa'. The Trlbunal sfaould fherefoi'e tafee an active rote to ascertain fhe true aad correct posltton so fhatit cauassessthe'just oompensatiou......,.*

¶39

In view of fhe above, we are of the ojE»aioafhat the niatters require reconsideratiou at the end of fhe Claiius TribtuiaL Thenefore, we aHow fliese appeals ht part, set aside fte uapugned awards aud reiuit the jaaatters back to fhe CIaims Tribunal to decide the mattcrs a&esh, in the Ught-of fhe obseryattons made hereuiabove. Tfae Tribunal shaU siuiunon (he record of tjx: y- criminal case aad tfae eyewitaesses as per chai^e-aheet.

¶40

Needtess to meattou that the parttes shaU be aBowed to aiuend the pleadings, adduce furfeer evjdence, fSie the docuBaeuts or get ttte documents verified cte. aad fheneafber decistou shaU toe takea aEresh.

¶41