Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
impugned award is hereby set aside and •the matter is remitted back to
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Section 134 (c) of the Aet envisages os under:- "(c) give the followin9 information in writing to the insurer, who has issued the certificates of insurance, about the occurrence of the accident, namely;- insurunce policy number and period of its validity; , i. ii.…
- Para 88. In the result, the-appeal filed by the Insurance Compony is allow»d, the impugned award is hereby set aside and •the matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal to decide the claim petitjon afresh i.e. licdbility and _.-4 quantum, in light of the observations…
Judgment
Smt. Pyari Bai W/o Chandar ShingJl, Patil, Cast Halba aged about 40 years. Resps. No. 1 85 2 are residing village- Aatargaon, P.S. Deori, Tehsil - Dondilohara, District Durg (C.G.). (Owner)
Narottam. SinghgoreS/o Sadal §ingh Gore Rivagahan Bharuka Tola Tehsil village R/o Dondilohara District Durg (C.G) . MPPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 ^-:;\ ; ^^ f^ HI6H COUftT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE &r. I.M.QU&&USI & HON'BLE MR. 6.MINHAJU&DIN. JJ tA.A. tC1 No. 1080/2011 AppeUants National Insurance Co. Ltd. ResBondents Chandar Singh & others Vs Present: Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No.l & 2. Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocata for the respondent No.3. ORDER (OraD (27th Aprii. 2012) Dr. I.M. Quddusi. J;
Heard.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 22.6.2011 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Durg (for short "the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.180/11 in so far as it relates to fastening of liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants, who are parents of deceased Tarun Patil, have filed a claiin petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20,69,400/- for the death of said Tarun Patil, who died in a motor accident, which took place on 25.5.2010, whein the tractor of the deceased bearin9 re9istration number C607-N-4385, in which he was going towards Village Aatargaon, overturned as a result of which he was pressed under the said tractor «<•"- and died. The claimants have claimed compensation on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, who was the sole eaming member in the family, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income.
The Claims Tribtinal vide impugned gwird partially altowed the claim qaplication. awarded a sum of Rs.3,19,000/- as compensation and fastened liabilit/ upon the appetlant-Insuronce Company to pcy compensation to the claimants.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Claims Tribunal.
Perusal of the record shows that -rfie driver had not produced the copy or particulars of driving licence and ther-efSre the Insurance Company had no oppor-hjnily to verify -the same.
Section 134 (c) of the Aet envisages os under:- "(c) give the followin9 information in writing to the insurer, who has issued the certificates of insurance, about the occurrence of the accident, namely;- insurunce policy number and period of its validity; , i. ii. particutars of •the iii. name of persons injured or killed in the accident; the driver and the particutars of his driving N. licence. " Thus, it is clear that it was the duty of respondent No.l-owner to produce the particulars of the driving licence of the driver, but the same has not been done in the instant case and therefore, the finding of the Claims Tribunal that burden to prove the fact that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident was on the Insurance Company, is not proper as without having particulars of licence it was not possible for the Insuronce Company to verify the same and prove the fact that on the date of accident, the driver was not having valid and effective driying licence. The Claims Tribunat, as per Section 134 (c) of the Act, should have directed the respondent No.l-owner of •the offending vehicle to produce the particutar.s of thefdriving licence, however, the same has not been done.in the present case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter is liable to be remitted back to the Claims Tribunal for taking decision afresh. s^ •• ^ ^ . ^ -.
Operative part
In the result, the-appeal filed by the Insurance Compony is allow»d, the impugned award is hereby set aside and •the matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal to decide the claim petitjon afresh i.e. licdbility and _.-4 quantum, in light of the observations made in 1+iis order. The Ciaims Tribunal shall also considered the question of maintainability of claim petition under Section 163-A of The Act. Needtess to mention that the Ctaims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and amend the pleadings or to file documents or verify the documents already filed. The amount, which has already been deposited by the Insurance Compony, shall remain in the fixed deposit of a nationalized bank <ind renewal of which shatl be obtained from time to time till the claim petition is decided afresh. However, the amount already paid to the claimants shall not be recovered froin them and it shall be subject to decision afresh.,in the matter.
The parties are directed to oppear before the Ctaims Tribunal on
20.6.2012. The Registry is directed to transmit record of the Claims Tribunal with^ytiuc'l'her delay. No order as to costs. Sd/- DR.I.M.Quddusi Judge Rnsban/- SA!^tt •^^v G.^^e <**• .r'
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: impugned award is hereby set aside and •the matter is remitted back to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.