Partly allowed

Mohitram Sahu v. Shakun Bai and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jun 2012MAC/252/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a motor accident appeal against an award. The court found the Tribunal failed to determine who was driving the accident vehicle based on police statements. The appeal was partially allowed, setting aside the award and remitting the matter to the Claims Tribunal for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part; the impugned award was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Claims Tribunal for a fresh decision.

Mohitram Sahu Vs Shakun Bai and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) 2S’L

¶4

M.A. C NO.

¶5

of 2012

¶6

APPELLANT] . Mohitram Sahu S/o Vikram Singh Non-appiicant N<p. 2 Sahu, aged about 46 years, R/o Village—Badnara, P.S.-Nandghat, Tahsil-Nawagarh, District—Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTSI :1. Shakun Bai W/o Santosh Sahu, Claimants g aged about 38 years, 2. Santosh Sahu S/o Kejuram Sahu, é‘ aged about42 years, 3. Rajendra Kumar S/o Santosh Sahu, § aged about15years 4. Pramod Kumar S/o Santosh Sahu, aged‘about 11 years é Respondents no. 3 & 4’ minor through legal guardian mother Smt. Shakun Bai W/o Santosh Sahu,

¶7

All R/o Village—Badnara, PS.— Nandghat, Tahsil-Nawagarh, DistrictDurg (C.G.) Ranjeet Sahu S/o Dular Sahu, aged about 19 years, R/o Village-Badnara, P.S.-Nandghat, Tahsil—Nawagarh, District-Durg (C.G.)

¶8

Non-applicants 5.

¶9

¶10

E.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, through Branch $ Manager, Office at Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, Third Floor, GE. Road, Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL : Rs.40,00,000ln AWARD AMOUNT : Rs. 3,22,0G0/= VALUATION QF THE PRESENT APPEAL: Rs. 3,22,M§0In

¶12

¶13

N~__ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UIS. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 w

¶14

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR

¶15

M. A. (C) No. 252 of2012

¶16

Appellant Mohitram Sahu Versus Respondents Shakun Bai 85 others

¶17

APPEAL UNDER SECTION^{173OFTHEMOTORVEHICLESACT,1988}

¶18

DB: Hon’ble Dr. I. M. Quddusi 85 .Hon’ble^{Mr.G.Minhajuddin,JJ}

¶19

Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate^{fortheappellant.} Shri Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate^{fortherespondentsNo.} 1 to 4. None for the respondent No.5.

¶20

Shri Anand Verma, Advocate^{andShriAmritoDas,Advocateforthe} respondent No. 6.

¶21

ORDER (Org

¶22

(^{Passedonthis13thdayofJune,2012} )

¶23

Per Dr. I. M. Quddusi, J.

¶24

This appeal has been filed against the^{impugnedawarddated} 31.01.2012, passed^{bytheAdditionalMotorAccidentClaims} Tribunal, Bemetera, District — Durg in Claim Case No. 101/2011, by the owner of the offending vehicle upon whom the liability to pay compensation has been fastened by the Claims Tribunal.

¶25

The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that the claimants had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of total compensation^{ofRs.40,00,000/—under} various heads on the ground that deceased^{RajuKumarSahu} was working as Labour in the Tractor — Trolley bearing registration No. C.G. 04—D/8056 and 8057. On 16.01.2011 when Raju Kumar Sahu was returning to Badnara by the tractor—trolley after unloading electric goods,^{ontheway,dueto} rash and negligent driving of the non—applicant No.1 an

¶26

accident had occurred^{whereinRajuKumarSahuhadcame} under the wheels of^{thetractoranddiedonthespot.} 3. Learned Claims Tribunal^{havingregardtothefactssituation} and the evidence on record awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,22,000/— along^{withinterest,fasteningtheliabilityupon} the driver and owner of the vehicle, jointly and severally, exonerating the Insurance Company, finding that there was violation of the conditions^{oftheinsurance} policy. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused^the records and found that^{thefacthasnotbeendeterminedbythe} Claims Tribunal properly, as to who was in fact driving the tractor at the time of^{accident.ThereisstatementofBalaram} Sahu, given before the police, available 5n record, who has stated that the^{deceasedhimselfwasdrivingthevehicleatthe} time of the accident and^{thereforetoascertainthetruththe} matter requires reconsideration^{attheendoftheTribunal.} 5. In view of the above,^{weallowthisappealin} part,^setasidethe impugned award and remit the matter back to the Claims Tribunal for decision afresh, in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

¶27

¶28

Needless to mention that the Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties^{toadducefurtherevidenceagainin} support of their pleadings and may file further documents. Thereafter, the decision^{shallbemadebytheTribunal,asearly} as possible, preferably^{withinareasonable} period. The parties may appear before the Tribunal concerned on 4th July, 2012.

¶29

¶30

The Registry is directed^{tosendbackthe} papers,^{requisitioned} from the Tribunal,^forthwith.

¶31

¶32

Sdl-
G. Minhajuddin
Judge

¶33

Sdl—
LM. Quddus‘i ‘ t ,
Judge

¶34

Thakur

Mohitram Sahu v. Shakun Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohitram Sahu v. Shakun Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Airen and Associates Vs M/S Sanmar Weighing Systems Pvt.Ltd.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Kunti Bai and Others

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt. Rita Verma and Ors.

Bhagat Singh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Sunil Kumar Nair

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Yaswant Kumar