1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 427 of 2016 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through its Legal Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 5th Floor National Corporate Park, Opposite Maruti Business, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1. Dukhiram S/o Veeru Gond, aged about 50 years 2. Bhagaiya Bai W/o Dukhiram Gond, aged about 47 years Both are R/o Village: Bijarakanpa, P.S: Lalpur, Tahsil: Lormi, District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 3. Nandkumar S/o Lokeshwar @ Mukau Jaiswal, aged about 31 years Driver and Registered Owner of Tractor Bearing No. C.G.- 10D/1372 and Trolley No. C.G.10-D/1373 R/o Village: Narayanpur, P.S: Lalpur, Tahsil: Lormi, District: Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 14.01.2025 SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.01.17 17:28:00 +0530 2 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal is by the appellant/insurance company against the award dated 14.11.2014 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District: Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 98 of 2011 awarding total compensation of Rs. 2,65,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization in favour of the claimants, while fastening liability on the respondents, jointly and severally. 3. As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 27.04.2008, the deceased Maniram was traveling in the tractor vehicle bearing registration No. CG10-D-1372 attached with trolley bearing registration No. CG10-D-1373 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) which was being driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the offending vehicle turned turtle and the deceased Maniram fell down and crushed under the tractor and died. At the relevant time, the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company. 4. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 8,60,000/- under various heads, the learned Tribunal considering the evidence led by the parties, awarded the amount as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal, without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to it, closed the right to lead evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal and has passed the impugned award declaring the insurance company ex- 3 parte which is not sustainable in law, therefore, it is prayed that the matter may be remanded back to learned Claims Tribunal for giving proper opportunity to lead the evidence about breach of policy conditions. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 7. So far as the issue No. 1 framed by the learned Claims Tribunal is concerned, it was answered in affirmative by holding that deceased Maniram died on account of vehicular accident caused by driver/respondent No. 3 of offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. 8. Admittedly, the claim petition was filed by claimants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 on 03.03.2011. A bare perusal of order sheet dated 09.10.2014 of the Claims Tribunal, it appears that no one had appeared on behalf of the insurance company for leading the evidence thereafter, the learned Claims Tribunal after declaring the Insurance Company ex-parte and further after closing of claimants’ evidence, the case was fixed for non-applicants’ evidence on 30.10.2014 and on that day also, no one had appeared on behalf of the insurance company/non-applicant No. 2 and that non-applicant No. 1/owner and driver of the offending vehicle was also not willing to produce any evidence and thereafter the case was fixed for final argument on 11.11.2014, on which date also, non-applicant No. 2/insurance company was again not present. After hearing final arguments of the parties present before the Tribunal, the impugned award was passed on 14.11.2014. Further, it appears from the 4 record that the appellant/insurance company was given opportunities to adduce its evidence by the Tribunal, but none was present on behalf of the insurance company to adduce its evidence nor they have examined any witness or proved any documents. Thus, it appears that the insurance company neither entered into witness box nor availed the opportunity of hearing being granted to it. In that view of the matter, the learned Claims Tribunal is left with no other option except to pass the impugned award and accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned award. 9. In view of above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the approach of the Tribunal in passing the impugned award, which do not call for any interference by this Court. 10. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit and substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh