,m^^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. N0. '3^1 F OF 2005. PETITIONER RESPONDENT No. 1 & 2 RESPONDENTS ^) ^ ^..{^w -^^ ""^c>^'"M'..^'"*r'^> ^i^fli :-1. Lal Babu, son ofMurtaja AIi, aged 23 years, Occupation Driver ofthe vehicle, 2. Murtaja Ali, son ofLal Mohammed, aged 43 years, Occupation Owner of the vehicle, Both resident of Village Podi, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G). VERSUS ^ :-1. Panchram, son ofRiddharam Verma, aged 33 years, resident ofVillage Jarti, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh), CLAIMANTS / 2. Rajesh Kumar Kewlani, sonofThawar Das Kewlani, Occupation Vehicle Owner, resident of Village Civil Lines, Katora Talab, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), \/3. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Raipur, Mahaveer Gaushala, Maudhapara, Raipur (C.G.), NON-APPLICANT N0. 3 AND 4 4. Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Kawaradha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^cLFBxiamLrxaLrcLEi^l bi±l^__„ XI-HC-22 3^T ^TRT^Tq'^ ^Tfl^jS<o, f^<rll^^< OT^Ti-ra^ ^ITN€<TT^RT^ CTW^y-N6-^S~i^200^ 30 3T^^T^T R-114)3T[^T ^iW^Cf •"s^ Ban/e ^ 7^" ^ 3:n^T^<n^:^rfN' 3-8-2005 chl^fd41^ ^l^dT^te^d^T^R: ^3Tf^T3n^?T Shri Pankaj Agrawat, counsei|forthe petitioners. Heard leamed counsel for th^ petitioners on admission. By the instant petition under \ the petitioners have questioned the whereby in para-25 of the order petitioners herein have breached t| ^rticle 227 of the Constitution of India legality of the prder dated 21-11-2003 learned Tribunal has held that the ie condition of the insurance policy, therefore, they are responsible foi) payment of compensation amount. However, in the first instance tl^e Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount, and then t^iey are entitled to recover from the petitioners. As on account of breach t>f policy the petitioners have been deciared responsibie for payment| of the compensation amount, the insurance Company has been dire4ted to pay the amount and thereafter to recover the amount from the pefJtioners, 1 do not find any infirmity or iitegality in this order. The writ petijtion is tiable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, M.(W.)P. No.^974/2005 and I.A. No.6676/2005 also stand disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (<ft^^^)