@ BEFORE THE HON'BLE mGH COURT OF CHTTATTISGARH, AT BILASPUR (CG) M.A.(C)NO. 2-oS/2011 E'Shi-s.BS. '^j s^^.;,;,:;^^^ APPELLANT (Insurer - N,A. No.3) THE NEW ENDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH THE DI-VISIONAL MANAGER, TRANSPORT NAGAR, K.ORBA(GG) RESPONDENTS (Applicant) ^ ^•";»6^':?"..^-:""1 ^'''^f^''''"...••••"". '^^••-^< ^ ^y \^ (Non-Applicant No.l- - Driver of the Vehicle) (Non-Applicant No.2- - Qwner of the Vehicle) A. VERSUS 1. JAYANT LAXMAN RAO KADVE, AGED 40 YEARS, S/0 SHRI LAXMAN RAO KADVE, THROUGH SMT. KIRAN KADVE, W/0 SHRI JAYANT LAXMAN RAO •••" KADVE, AGED AROUND 34 YEARS, R/0 AAVAS N0. E.W. 01, DR. R.P. NAGAR, PHASE-I, KORBA, DISTRICT KORBA (CG). 2. SANTOSHKUMARKARSH, S/0 SHRI CHAITURAM KARSH, AGED 30 YEARS, R/0 BIRRA, THANA BAHMANIDEEH, THANA JANJGIR, CHAMPA (CG) 3. MOHD. HASAN KHAN, S/0 ALI AHIMED KHAN, R/0 mOH COURT MARG, BILASPUR, TEHSIL & DISTRICT BILASPUR (CG) APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOT^)R VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appeal valued at Rs. 23,73,109/- - ti ii-1 HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BiLASPUR MISC, APPEAL (0 No. 205 of2011 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. rtnsurer - N.A. No.3S Jayant Laxman Rao Kadve and others. , APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE UOTOR VEHICLES ACT,1988 (DB: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aqarwal & Hon'bte Shn R.L, Jhanwar, JJ.) : Shri Mahavir Bhatnagar, counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18th day of February, 2011) This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 08-10- 201 D passed by Mofor Aecident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 114/2008 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.23,73,109/- has been awarded as compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 2. As against the claim of Rs.50,45,000/- along with interest >18% per annum under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') ftled by the claimant against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle for the injuries sustained by him In theaccident dated 26-12-2007 by bus bearing registration No. CG 10 ZA/0414, the iearned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.23,73,109/- as compensation aiong wi6h interest in favour of the claimant holding the appeilanVlnsurance Company iiabie for its payment. 3. Shri Bhatnagar, learned counsel. appearing for the appellant admits the fact that no permission under Sech'on 1 70 of the Act has beenobtained by the appeilanMnsurance Company in order to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the tearned Tribunat. However, he assailed the award on the ground: the owner ofthe vehicie was not having any valid permit T' af the time of accident and, therefore, the iiabifity haswrongiy been fastened upon the appeitanfinsurance Company. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appejiant and aiso perused the award impugned. 5. For the reasons best known to the appeSSanVlnsurance Company, the appeiiant did not examine any officer of the Company nor examined R.T.0. person to prove fhe defence taken by it. it js trite'Iaw that burden is upon the Insurance Company to prove its defence in vs/hich it utterly failed. The iearned Tribunai has aiso recorded categorica! finding in paras 25 and 27 of the award impugned regarding faiiure of appeilant/'insurance Company to discharge its burden. 6. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere in the award impugned passed by the learned Tribuna). No other grounds have been raised. 7. For the reasons mentiqned herein above, the appeal being devoid of substance is ilable to be and te hereby dlsmissed. order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^ 8^at Kw