Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay S Agrawal, J.
RAJESH SAKUJA - Appellant
Versus
ASHA DEVI CHOUHAN - Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal Of Compensation No. 873 of 2013, 874 of 2013, 1056 of 2013, 1057 of 2013
Decided On : 07-01-2020
Sanjay Patel, Advocate, Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate, Chitra Shrivastava, Advocate
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 151 - Order 17 - Rule 1 - Indian Evidence Act, - Section 137 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Claims Tribunal - Motor Accident Claims - Case are that deceased Vijay Kumar and his daughter were travelling along with claimants in Marshall Jeep bearing registration - On fateful day it was dashed vehemently offending vehicle bearing registration owned and insured respectively by Non-Applicant and Non-Applicant -New India Insurance Company Limited relevant time it was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver owing to which alleged accident occurred and said and his daughter expired giving rise to institution of two separate Claim Petitions registered respectively as Claim Case and Claim Case wherein they claimed a sum respectively under various heads –Held, Court has laid down that Section allows right of cross-examination of a witness to an adverse party- Where parties arrayed as defendants in a suit have taken contradictory stands on a relevant and material issue they shall be adversary to each other and are entitled to exercise their right of cross-examination against each other- In instant case as defendants respondents are contesting claim and they are adverse party they have right to cross-examine it different matter what questions they are required to put but right to cross-examine cannot be denied to them- Consequently in our considered opinion trial Court has rightly rejected application filed by plaintiff petitioner case in hand and considering further valuable right of owner to cross-examine witness adduced by insurer Court of view that award impugned as passed by Tribunal without affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to appellant/owner as required to be given by virtue of said remand order has vitiated entire proceedings appeals are allowed and matters are remanded to concerned Tribunal decide Claim Petitions afresh strictly in light of direction contained in said remand order as soon as possible preferably within period from of receiving certified copy of this order as matter is pertaining to accident occurred - All parties are directed to remain present before concerned Additional Motor Accidents Tribunal - Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. - These appeals have been preferred by the owner as well as the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988) questioning the legality and propriety of the common award dated 09.07.2013 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Korba whereby the learned Claims Tribunal, while allowing the claim in part, has exonerated the insurance company from its liability. The parties to this Appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Court below.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 31.12.2003, deceased Vijay Kumar Chouhan and his daughter Neetu Singh @ Mamta Singh Chouhan were travelling along with the claimants in the Marshall Jeep bearing registration No. CG-12-ZD-0116. On the fateful day, it was dashed vehemently by the offending vehicle, i.e., 'Trailor' bearing registration No. CG-04-G-3216, owned and insured respectively by Non-Applicant No.2 Rajesh Sakuja and Non-Applicant No.3 - the New India Insurance Company Limited. At the relevant time, it was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Rahman Khan, owing to which, the alleged accident occurred and said Vijay Kumar Chouhan and his daughter Neetu Singh expired giving rise to the institution of the two separate Claim Petitions registered respectively as Claim Case No. 233/2007 and Claim Case No. 250/2007 wherein they claimed a sum of Rs.47,30,292/- and Rs.41,50,800/- respectively under various heads.
3. Non-Applicant No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle was proceeded ex parte while owner of it, i.e., Non-Applicant No.2 contested the Claim Petitions mainly on the ground that the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, therefore, if any liability being fastened, the same could be indemnified by the insurance company.
4. Non-Applicant No.3, the insurer of the vehicle in question, refuted the claim by submitting, inter alia, that neither the cover note nor the insurance policy has been issued by the insurance company in the name of the owner of the vehicle in question, therefore, the company cannot be held liable to pay any amount of compensation in relation to the accident occurred on 31.12.2003.
5. The Claims Tribunal, in an earlier occasion, upon considering the evidence led by the parties, had allowed the Claim Petitions in part and the liability was fastened upon the insurance company vide its common award dated 16.07.2009.
6. The aforesaid award was, however, set aside by this Court on 06.01.2011 in appeals being MAC No. 1335/2009 and MAC No. 1336/2009 preferred by the insurance company and remanded the matter while directing at paragraph 12 as under:-
"12. Accordingly, we allow the appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal concerned for taking decision afresh in light of observations made in this order. Needless to mention that the claim cases shall be decided by the Tribunal after providing opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, amend the pleadings, file documents or verify the documents already filed. It is also directed that the amount, which has already been deposited by the appellantInsurance Company and yet not disbursed to the claimants, shall not be either refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company or disbursed to the claimants till the disposal of the claim petition."
7. Upon remand, the Claims Tribunal, has passed the impugned common award in Claim Case Nos. 168/2013 and 169/2013 while exonerating the insurance company from its liability.
8. Being aggrieved, the instant appeals have been preferred by the owner of the vehicle in question as well as the Claimants, registered respectively as MAC No.823/2013, MAC No. 874/2013, MAC No. 1056/13 and MAC No.1057/13.
9. Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle in question in MAC Nos.873 & 874 of 2013, submits that the
