Remanded

Sushil Kumar Gupta and Another v. Smt.Chanda Bai Pahadi and Others

Chhattisgarh HC10 Mar 2014MA/404/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposal order remits a motor accident compensation case to the Tribunal to reconsider liability. The appellant sought to add a driving licence as evidence to challenge a prior award that exonerated the insurer. The court allowed the application for additional evidence and directed the Tribunal to decide liability and interest issues expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for adding the driving licence on record was allowed; the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to decide liability and interest.

Sushil Kumar Gupta and Another Vs Smt.Chanda Bai Pahadi and… — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

T*I 'Mg^HT&H CQJ..mT< OF JUDIOATORH•.. •-' 'JST . /.JASAT,?IM .
x<<s.
''s»y^ .
?A.Nol.<O^Ot|Of^^ 9000.

¶2

APPBl.,LMTSs

¶3

1.^ ShM Sushll K'.uaar Oupta,

¶4

3/o ghi-i MFuiaaeo ?ras<id ffupta,

¶5

R, o Tlkrap'ara, BI.taspur

¶6

w.P.( owner of vshl..c"te).

¶7

2.^ Ghotkoolal Manlkpurl,

¶8

S/o T,a1ulal tfanikpur-1,

¶9

R/o Tlkrapara, Bllaspur, ".p.

¶10

(^D"lverof vehlcls).

¶11

vsasus

¶12

3.. sn't. Chandbal Pfihadl, Wd/o T.aff f ^ APWS, Kuaar Pahadl, ag»d "58 yeftra.

¶13

"'. SBt. M-ihstrln Bal Pabadl, / c, . M/otbar- of T.ata AyuBkuiBr pahadl ^- aged 65 yaars.

¶14

.';. ^ (?ourl shankar 3/0 T,ata Arun paaar, pahadl, siged 16 years studant, of Clnss 6th. '

¶15

^4. paw.i.n Kunai- g 'o T,at.e Arun Kuinar, pahadl, ag«d 14.yaarg, stadant, • -...

¶16

Olass S.t.h.

¶17

¶18

-3. Ku. satlbdl pahftdi, g/o Late AruBkuiaa.r, ag®d1S ysara.

¶19

6.: Ku. santoghl Bal s/o itpun Kumap,

¶20

5 Pahadl, aged 10 years.1 .

¶21

-7. g'hftrikftrt-?il pzahadi., s./o ;T,a'l.s

¶22

5 .Ar,in Kum?i"r pahadl, afeS 5 7ise.vi Contd...? ! .

¶23

¶24

''t t'

¶25

d9 ^

¶26

-?-

¶27

lQ.1 r-egldents of MohaTla Rajeev Nagaft, Bllaspur, ri'l.stt. Bllaspur,T'p RKSPONDSNT; The N«w indla insurance OoapBny, NONOLAIMANT; ^ Llalted, Branch O^i'loa Hajendranagar Chowk, through Branch waaap-er, Rajendranagar, TehsTl a.nd dlstri-ctBllftopur, M.P.

¶28

MISG. APPEAL HNBSS'JNDSR 3SOTIGH 17'! O? 'mB WOTOR VTiHIGLSS AC? 1988.

¶29

^•,

¶30

¶31

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶32

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

¶33

M.A. No.404 of 2000

¶34

Appellants

¶35

Shri Sushil Kumar Gupta and another

¶36

V£RSUS

¶37

Respondents

¶38

Smt. Chandbai Pahadi and others

¶39

Present:

¶40

Shri Malay Shrivastava, counsel for the appellants. Shri H.S. Patel, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 7.

¶41

Shri RajAwasthi, counsel for respondent No.8.

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(11.3.2014)

¶44

This appeal has been filed by the appellants/owner & driver against the award dated 6.10.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 132/98 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,39,672/- in favour of the claimants, fastening the liability upon the appellants/owner & driver of the vehicle, while exonerating the insurance company.

¶45

Facts of the case in brief are that on 28.6.1998 when Arun Kumar was riding his bicycle, he was dashed by a jeep (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle"), which was owned by appellant No.1 herein and at the relevant time driven by appellant No.2 herein in a rashand negligent manner. On account of this accident, Arun Kumar sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot.

¶46

A claim case was filed by respondents No. 1 to 7/claimants before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.8.80 lacs against the death ofArun Kumar from driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶47

However, learned Tribunal by the impugned award granted a

¶48

¶49

total compensation of Rs.2,39,672/in favour of the claimants, fastening the liability upon the appellants/owner and driver of the offending vehicle, while exonerating the insurance company, on the ground that at the time of accident, appellant No.2/driver was not possessing valid and effective licence to drive the offending vehicle. It is this award which has been assailed by the appellants/owner and driver before this Court in the present appeal.

¶50

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that before the Tribunal, appellant No.l/owner did not file his written statement and was proceeded ex-parte. He submits that though written statement was filed by appellant No.2/driver, but later on he too was proceeded exparte. He further submits that in fact at the time of accident appellant No.2 was having a valid and effective driving licence, but the same could not be produced before the Tribunal. He submits that the appellants have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with copy of driving licence which goes to show that on the date of accident appellant No.2 was having valid and effective driving licence and therefore, considering the documents available on record, the matter is required to be remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the point of liability afresh. If after remand the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that on the date ofaccident appellant No.2 was having valid and effective driving licence, then liability would be fastened upon the insurance company.

¶51

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that it was the duty ofappellant No.2 to file all the relevant documents before the Tribunal and once he has failed to file such documents despite providing sufficient opportunity in this regard, at this stage the same can not be filed, nor any cognizance ofthose documents can be taken. He further submits that if the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the point of liability afresh, apart from adducing evidence on the said point the insurance company may be given liberty to put forth its argument on the issue of payment of interest on the awarded sum

¶52

s -

¶53

because delay occurred in payment of compensation, including the amount of interest thereon, has not been on the part of the insurance company but is on the part of the appellants who after filing the instant appeal and obtaining stay order in the year 2000 did not prosecute this appeal seriously and further the application for taking the additional documents on record has also been filed at a belated stage.

¶54

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 7/claimant submits that only 25% of the awarded amount has been deposited and in fact, it is the claimants who are the sufferers.

¶55

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶56

From the impugned award it appears that the insurance company has been exonerated solely on the ground that at the time of accident, appellant No.2/driver was not having a valid and effective licence to drive the offending vehicle. However, by way of application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC filed before this Court ttie appellants have prayed for taking the additional document i.e. driving licence of appellant No.2 on record, according to which appellant No.2 was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date ofaccident.

¶57

Thus, considering all the aspects of the case, in particular the fact that certain documents filed by the appellants before this Court go to show prima facie that on the date of accident, appellant No.2 was having a valid and effective driving licence and also considering the interest of the claimants, this Court is of the view that the application filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for taking decision on the following issues in accordance with law:

¶58

(i) Whether on the date of accident appellant No.2 was having a valid and effective licence to drive the offending vehicle?

¶59

(ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, who would be liable to pay interest on the awarded amount?

¶60

-•9-

¶61

As the accident is of the year 1998 and execution of the award impugned is stayed since 2000, the Tribunal is directed to decide the aforesaid issues by passing a well reasoned order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possibly, preferably within a period of three months from the first date of hearing.

¶62

Needless to say that the parties shall be allowed to adduce additional evidence or file additional documents in respect of the said issue and the Tribunal shall thereafter decide the issue on the basis of evidence so adduced in accordance with law.

¶63

Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 11th April, 2014.

¶64

Registry is directed to send back the record to the concerned Tribunal immediately.

¶65

In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶66

.^-..' ^^s^•d*l.....a^e1t

Sushil Kumar Gupta and Another v. Smt.Chanda Bai Pahadi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Gupta and Another v. Smt.Chanda Bai Pahadi and Others

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

Suryakant Gupta Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner And Ors.

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.ltd. Vs Smt.Tiloka Bai And Ors.

Rajesh Stripe Ltd. Vs Raipur Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Bhagirathi Gupta Vs Kanchan Bala Gupta

Sidhram Marar Vs Lakesh Sahu and Anr.

Premlal Sahu Vs Dhirja Bai Sahu and Ors.