-7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL N0 ^l S^ /2006 APPELLANT /'./•" Non-Applicant no2 Sanjay Heliwal S/o C.L. Heliwal aged about 36 years, R/o Laluram Colony Korba (C.G.) Present R/o New Market Main Road Bacheli, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS fctf \w\ ^C'^A V c^y l/ Rajraan S/o Mahadev Muriya J^ ^ about about 55.years> R/o Village f _ - „ A Raykot Thana Kodenar, Jagdalpur Distt. Baster (C.G.) 2. Smt. Sukari W/o Rajman Caste Muriya aged about 53 years, R/o Raj Kot Thana Kodenar Distt. Baster (C.G). Applicants 3(_ Mohan Singh @ Dinesh S/o Jaggu Singh Chatta aged about 36 years R/o Hikamipara Jagdalpur Tah. Jagdalpur Distt. Baster (C.G.) ' NON APPLICANT N0.1 4.., The new India Insurance Company, Through , Branch Manager Jagalapur Near Jhankar Talkies, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Baster (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT l Cl HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH : BILASPUR T M. A.No. 459 of 2006 Appellant Sanjay Heliwal Versus Respondents Rajman & others MISC, APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Dr. I. M. Quddusi SE Hon'ble Mr. G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri K. K. Dewangan, Advocate for the appellant. Shri H. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Qurainl Aziz, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 13th day of December, 20.11 ) PerI. M. Quddusi J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/non-applicant No.2/owner against the impugned award dated 23rd February, 2006, passed by the M.A.C.T. Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 112/2005, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,02,000/- as con-ipensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application i.e. 17.3.2005, holding the appellant as liable to pay the amount of corapensation, exonerating the insurance company from any liability. 2. Brief facts of the case, in nutshell, a per fhe version of the claimants, are that on 26.10.2004 deceased Lauchand, as a Cleaner, was going by the truck bearing registration No. C.G. 12 ZC/0312. When the truck was going from Mavli Bhata stone raines (Patthar Khadan) to Raikot, on the way, near Raikot culvert, at about 9.30 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant No. 1 the truck got out of.control and got jolted thereby the side door of the truck became open and the deceased fell down from the truck. In that accident he received grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries on the next day in the hospital. ./ -issea" . ^f,3-<RE^ ^, ^f' ^.y' "-^ "^ i 8^"^. I 1 •'iiE.:^! | ^,^ •'if,^^/ '^^ '^ ....-^^' -Slf.'^ -•-•^••s^' 7. 8. ^ The clainiants/parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation, submitting that the deceased was working as Cleaner on the truck and he was getting Rs. 3300/- per month as salary and allowances. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation. and the evidence on record held that there was violation of the condition of the Insurance Policy and thus exonerated the Insurance Company from any liability and directed the appellant/non-applicant No.2/owner to pay a total sum of RS. 2,02,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application i.e. 17.3.2005. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the papers on record, it is evident that in the written statement the appellant/owner has denied that the decease was his employee, deputed in the vehicle. The F.I.R. shows that so many persons/labourers were sitting in the truck on the loaded boulders and the deceased was also one of the corapanions of those labourers. As such it has not been proved that the deceased was a Cleaner, deputed on the vehicle and therefore no case is made out for interference in the impugned award so far as liability part is concerned. We have also examined the quantum part of the award and have found that no interference is called for in the impugned award in respect of quantum assessed and fbced by learned Claims Tribunal. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any substance in this appeal, which deserpes to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. —[, Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge •<;. -. Thakur