'EKE,B0K'BU&,.HHdlfc.eOUEffi OB GHHWH^MBH. ^E: MIASPUR, MA.<C)1fe- lo'7'J QF-2010 IAPPEAL.VALUBD..&B: ^tsia^®1w" ^y ".'.: - ,s? .APJPJEAl UNDfiR SECBOS173 OF IISE jyQ'IUK WEHICLES ACT. 19S8, APEEU-AMF (NON- APPLICANT N0.3) •1^'- ;r'" .,A'^ ^b3^f^... ''-?1-?" . l->ltl ^^•^' ^••"^' <" .ffl'C^' ' , Asl< ,.«s('1*' .••'" ^'^, ...^a\ RESPONDENT (APPLICANTNO.l) (NQN-APPUCANT N0.1) , (NON-APPUCANT NOAl ;1- A. •3. Coinpaay Unuted, Tlu-ough; Jts Diviaonal Man^ei^ Divisi&iial^ Office, Ist Floor, Krisbaa coiaplesi;, Kutcttecy Chowk, Raipur, Tah.& DistL- VJEj^US PreBilal,. S/o- Punau SatnaBa, aged -38 years, Ji/o -ViU.- Semariyay P-S- & Tah-- Bbatapara, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) PuruAottam. Sahu, S/0- Late- Sewala-am Sahu, aged about- 27 yeacs, R/Q- Par^iurani Ward Bliatapara, P.S. Bhatapara lCity) Ts Bhatapara, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of HeEO-Honda CD Dawa SSO.-CG-10E-2923] Rrishna Kumar Sahu.y S/0- Latekam Sahu, aged-42 years, R/O-Dr- Hicalal Ward, Daupara Mtuageli, Distt Bilaspur(C-G-)(OwnHr c£ Hero- Haada CD Dawa -Ng.-CG-lQE- 2923) L. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.C. No. 1077/2010 APPELLANT United India Insurance Corapany Limited Versus RESPONDENTS Premlal and others SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. J. PRESENT:- Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (18-11-2010) Per N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1, application for exemption from fUing certified copy ofthe order passed under Section 170 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly the Act'). 2. Considering the fact that the appellant is not challenging the quantum of compensation but is only chaUenging its liability, the application is allowed and the appellant is exempted from filing certified copy of order passed under Section 170 ofthe Act. 3. Heard on adinission. 4. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 16th June, 2010 passed by the Additional Motor Accidenf Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara in Claim Case No. 3/2002 whereby and whereunder, an amount ofRs. 60,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant holding the appellant/Insurance Company also liable for its payment. 5. Only contention raised by Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant is that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle under Sections \ 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. read with Section 3/181 and ® lgl?gI^|8|gffli^;g^|jtJ||v|iiB3K||)sgsiai.^^ ^.:>'i,^:^^K©ia|i^^a|t^;'vafiS ^ ^thus l^ 'E^unat^^ ^p^Tnent of^pHipensatioFL^ ^^ ^ ^^ Gompany Kas not led evidence nor Goilditipns, thus has hot proved its defenee which is required to be proved iinder sub-seetion (2) of SeGtion. 149 ofthe.Act.' . .-., ! ; .'; • 1 . •": :; -, • : ;; / :• •< 6. Haviiig teard leained eounsel for the appeUarit ar^ perusedthe award impygned, I do^not^d any siibstal^ in the appeat, K is trite law that it is for the ^^^a^ Insurance Company to prove its defence. The defence taken by the appellant/Insurance Gompany has not been proved by it by leadingevidence nor the policy conditions have been proved. Hon'ble Supreliie Cpurt in the case of National ^Insurance^^ G^ Singh.and otfaers reportedm 2004(3) SCC 297 hasheldthat witha view to avoid their UabiUty, the insurance eompanies 'niiust not only estabUsb the available defence(s) raised in tfae said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of ttle owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof whereforwould be on them. 7. In \dew of the admitted positiorL that the appeUant has done nothing to discharge its burden and in view of above settled legal position, I do not find any substance in the '^ .:'•••'•..' • . • . . ...'. ' .•:. • ... •• ;••• . -•: ..:••' • .. •: • ..•;"...' '. '. :.'. instant appeal. The same dgserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Noorderastocosts. » Sd/- N.K. AgaFawaI Judge ^.:f'-"'-f": .—...; :'^;.>: !ly '^ - 'a