W 5h HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) ND. 3285 OF 2008 PETITIONERI New India lnsuran¢e Company Ltd., N.A.No.3 through the Branch Manager, 2“ Floor. Raipur Development Authority Bhawan, Bajrang Market, GE Road, Raipur, thiough Divisional Manager, Divisionai Office, New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Biiaspur (CG). Versus 1. Mantora, aged about 46 years, son of Shri Khamhan Yadav, caste Rawat, Occupation Labour. Applicant No.1 Devendra Kumar, aged about 7 years, son of Mannu Yadav, Minor through — the natural guardian — Badi Maa, wife of Khamhan Yadav, aged about 35 years. Both are resident of village Khaargaon, P.S. and Tah. Beria, Distt. Durg (CG). Applicant No.2 Punau Ram, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Anjore Das Dhruw, occupation — Vehicle Driver, R/o vill. Rawa, P.S. Arjuni, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). N.A.No.1 Parmanand Verma, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Khoob Ram Verma, occupation — vehicle owner, caste Kurmi, Rio vill. Girendra, PS. Tah. and Distt. Raipur(CG). N.A.No.2 (Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present : Shri Ali Asgar, counsel for the petitionerilnsurance Company. RESPONDENTSI ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 18m day of August, 2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitionerllnsurance Company submits that the impugned award dated 28-2-2008 (Annexure-PI1) passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Durg, is bad on account of the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured. He also submits that the driver of the vehicle was also not having possession of the valid licence. 2) The Tribunal after hearing all the parties came to the conclusion that the petitionerlinsurance Company has failed to establish that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured. The Tribunal has further held that this is the responsibility of the Insurance Company to estalalish that there was no insurance at ail or the vehicle concerned was not insured with the petitioner/insurance Company. With regard to driving licence, enquiry was made and the Regional Transport Officer, Raipur, subrnitted that the driving licence was not issued from the oftice of Regional Transport Ofticer. 3) Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that no appeal shalt lie against any award of a Ciaims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees. The putpose seems to be laudable. as for grant of less than Rs.10,000l— the complainant should not be dragged to the Court. 4) Be that as it may, since the amount of compensation involved is only an amount of Rs.1,5DOI-, it is not necessary to go into the aspect that whether the driver was not in possession of the valid driving licence. This court does not exercise writ jurisdiction only, but is a court of equity also. 5) This court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or iurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 6) Having regard to the facts situation of the case, wherein only a sum of Rs.1 ,500l- has been awarded to each injured person, it is not necessary to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 7) in view of the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. 8) Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of. / / // sal— Gowri Satish K. Agnihotn Judge w “;1,15 g;re