It IN_THE HIGH COURT OF AT BILASPURCHHATnSGARH M.A.NO. C^-tk I 200^ Appellant /Insurer Versus National Insurance Company Ltd., Near R.M.OfBce and near Central Bank of India Jagdalpur, Dist : jagdalpur- (C.G.) Kespondents ^laimants / ^'^ ^ •!§'' 1. C Namita Mallik Wd/o Mangal Mallik ^ lrg Aged about 30 years, 2, „ Ku.Shiksha . ^ ^D/o Late Mangal Ivlallik Aged about 15 years, 3. e Ku.Sandhya ^ D/o Late Mangal Ivlallik, f^Aged about 13 years, 4,, ^ Ku.Laxmi ^ D/'o Late Ivlangal IvIaUik 11 years, Manik S/o Late Mangal Mallik Aged about lu years b. Ku.Monika D/o Late Mangal Mallik, Aged about 7 years Respondents 1 to 6f are R/o village P.V.-l P/S Pankajoor, dist : Kanker- (C.G.j, respondent no.2 to 6 through natural guardian respondent no.l Namita Mallik APPEAL.U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES AC-T mOH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BIIASPUR MISC. APPEAL No. 296/2006 APPELLANT RESPONDEa»TS National Insurance C^aapany Ltd. Versus Namita Mallik nd ofhers SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESBNT:- Shri Raj Awasthi, Advocate, for tte appellant Shri Prakash Tiwari and Shri J.A. Lbhanl, Advocates for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (10-3-2010) Per N.K. Aearwal. J ; With consent of the parties, heard fmaUy. 2. This Insurer's appeal is directed against fhe award dated 23-7-2005 passed by 4fh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Kanker, whereby and whereunder leamed Tribiinal has awarded Rs. 1,34,800/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annuni from fhe date ofapplication tffl its recoveiy against the appeUant. 3. Brieffacts ofthe caseareasunder:- 4. On 5-1-2001, tractor bearing registoration No. MP 28 GA / 5007 and troUey bearing registration No. MP 23 GA/5008 being driven by Mangal Mallik (since deceased) due to steering faflure, tumed turtle and feU down on a canal and pursuant to the injuries sustained in tbe accident, said Maiigal MaUik died on spot. 5. The claimants, unfcHtunate wife and children of the deceased, preferred claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 5,35,000/- as compensation against the appellant for fhe death of the deceased. In its written statement, fhe appeUant/tosurance Company has taken a spedfic plea that fhe deceased was not having any vaHd and effective dnving licence at the time of accident, and therefore, Ae- Insurance Company is not U^ble for payment of compensation to the claimant 6. Leamed Tdbunat on a close scrutiny^of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made, held fhat the Insurance Company has fafled to prove the fact that the deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence at fhe tirne of acddent and awarded fhe aforesaid compensation. Hence this appeal. 7. Shri Raj Awasthi, leamed counsel far the appellant would subinit tfaat it was the duty of the claimants to lile driviag Ucence of the deceased, having not done so, it cannot be said fhat the deceased was having valKl and effective driving licence at the ttme of accident. 8. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondents supported fhe award and submitted 'that the respondent No. 1 Namita Maltik has clearly stated ta her evidence that her husband i.e. the deceased was holdiag valid and efi'ective driving licence to drive fhe tractar at fhe time of accident and he was drivmg ta'actor since last 10 years. His licence was in his pocket at the time of accident whlch has been lost at fhe time of coDecting his body from canal. Therefore, it caruaot be said fhat (he claimaats have suppressed any fact with regard to licence. 9. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the unpugned award and also the record ofthe TdbiinaL 10. It is trite law that in order to substantiate fhe plea of mvalid driving licence, the Insuraace Company has to prove the same as a fact in fhe case, and the Insurance Company has utterly fafled to prove the same. 11. In vlew of fhls, it cannot be sald fhat leamed Tilbunal has committed any iHegality in passing the award against fhe ^ appellant warranting interference ofthls Court. 12. No other ground has been raised. 13. In the result, fhe appeal being devoid of substanee, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/. XKAg^, Judge