BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL FC1 N0. /2007 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 APPELLANT flnsurerl ».-r««<:AV' ^->A ^^~\ . RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT The New India Assurance Company Limited, through the Divisional -Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Second Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1. Nammu Lal son of Shri Milau Ram Thakur, aged about 32 years, caste- Gond, Resident of: G- Cabin, B.M.Y. Charoda, P.S. Old Bhilai, District Durg [C.G.] DRIVER ^ 2.S Ratandeep Dongre, son of Shri C.N. OWNER 3. Dongre, aged about 33 years, caste Dongre, R/o Gautam Nagar, Lakhenagar, Rapier (Chhattisgarh) C/o M/s. Mahamaya Travels, Gautam Nagar, Raipur [C.G.]. M/s. Mahamaya Travels, Gautam Nagar,'Raipur (Chhattisgarh) CLAIM IN APPEAL VALUED AT Rs. 1.46.902/- + ^ 3H^T W R-(!<* ^W sn^y aiiiqi <n*i^[ a>*<(<»> 'ysf '^W\v\^, ytTI'H'is, f°«viiuli< M.^.......}.^±\.. 3n^IT(3RT (lyf^^) 22.10.2009 Shri Sourabh Sharma, A| Shri JSP Chandrasen, A| Shri Avinash Sahu, Advcj With the consent of the fl The instant appeal is Company chailenging the qua| passed bv the VI Ith Additional (FTC) Durg (for short 'Tribuna!] vhiar^iin.^^r 3fRS. the ciaimant for the injuries su^t Admittedly, the perrniss|l Vehicles Act, 1988, (forshort the appeilant/insurance Comp4 Shri Sharma, iegmed cc] submits that although the app| Act was filed by the appellant fc] same was taken on record.no< and therefore, the matter s| Tribunal. , Per contra, Shri C'nandr| there is no mention in the ordq CM<lf<'1<l1t HW^if ^ ^'<1 <^l'fc$l< ^TsiRnan^i jvocate for appellant. a'vocate for respondent No. 1 . cate for respondent No. 3. arties, the matter is heard finaily. r'iled by the appellant/lnsurance itum of award dated 08.08.2007 Claims Tribuna! in case No. 26/05, whereby and ,46, 902/- 'na-s been awarcled to iined by him in the accident. jon under section 170 of Motor MV Act') has "ot been granted to inybythe Tribunai. unsel appearing for the appeliant ication under Section 170 of MV efore the Tribuna!, but neither the decided by the learned Tribunal, lould be remitted back to the asen and Shri Sahu submits that sheet of the Tribunal about filina /fs^\ XI-HG—78 ^i R-ii* T^?T sft+liqi Salliu *4!*ICTI ^i^T<b T=T •<<i'4ici'4, ytfl'y'is, I®i<ni'Hy,< ^..^.^...A.U.\4....:........^2o^ sn^i iraq? C^?f3^i) 21 the said application by the app^Ilant, moreover, this plea has not been taken by the appellant in|their appeal and in view of settled position of law, the appeal, |3eing not maintainabie, may be have heard the Iearnec| counsel appearing for the parties ind perused the record. Undisputedly, in view of|settled position of iaw and in view the dictum of Supreme Coi|rt in case of N< reported in 2002 (7) SCC 45^ chalien^e any award on the qi( finding regarding negiigence| under section 170 of MV A< aithough the application has| rejected by the Tribun< is no mention in the order sh fillna of sueh apDlication bv th Tailed to submit that if applicapion was not mentioned in the orderl Therefore, in view of bar| >eai is dismissed as not mail ct)i'4^41i ^iiucif "^ fs'^1 <F>i<^n ^affipTan^i , the insurance company cannof estion of quantum as v>?e!l as the unless permission is obtained t. !t is also not a case vvhere been filed but the same was untenable grounds, even there 'et of the learned Tribunal about i appellant & appellant's counse! was filed then whv this fact under section 170 of MV Act, the (itainable. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge