^' i^""" ^^ Singl^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. /4' t1 /2006 APPLICANT ^ fo- Indarsingh Chawalia, R/o- Baldevbagh, Rajnandgaon TahsU & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Owner) VERSUS ,2) NON APPLICANTS 1) ^ishana Bhalekar, S/o-Gajanwd Bhalekar, Aged about 43 years Occupation Driver (Truck) R/o- Village Churiya, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Driver) _Banshi S/o- Heeralal R/o- Nayakbandha, (Abhanpur) TahsU & District Raipur (C.G.) (Claimant) 3) / The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Kamthi line, Rajnandgaon through Divisional Managar, Divisionan Office & Kachahari Chowk Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer) ^ CrVIL REVISIQN UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURECODE ^ -=f- XI-HG—78 WN^fT 5bNI^ ^^~^TRMZT, ^tii<ri^i<o, f®i<ni<H^< _..c..:.^....^:... "^200^ 3^1 -q^? ( ^f^^) ^rr ^t^ .•'^^i^T^T'iRW S.B. Hon'bfe Shri Justice N.K. Aaa 05-11-2009 Shri Basant Dewangan, coun^i Shri H.S. Patel, counsel for no| Heard on M.(C).P. No.j condonation of delay in fjling the On due consideratjon and appiicatlon 1 am satisfied that thej expfaining the cause of delay jn f|l M.(C).P. is allowed and the delay hereby condoned. Heard on admission. The instant revisjon is flledl against the award dated 10-05-; No.79/2005 by IXth AdditionaJ (F.T.C.), Raipur (for short 'th( whereunder a total sum of Rs.i per annum has been awarded in and against the app(icant/owner| Company, on the ground that the the truck as a gratuitous passengej Facts briefly stafed as underl for e appticant. ^appiicant No.3. 1755/2006, appljcation for r^vision. the grounds taken in the applicant has succeeded in ling the revjsion. Therefore, ^aused jn filing the revision is Motor .soolo/. ^T^PN '^FRTf ^ fe^ <psl^8< ^atfw^T^T wal |by the owner of the yehtele p05 passed in Claim Case Accident Clajms Tribunaf Tribunal') whereby and 3p/- aiong with interest @ 6% ^vour of the injured claimant exonerating the Insurance pnjured person was sitting jn at the tlme ofaccident 4- ^HC—78' e^i^T'^'w ^SH a?T^T'^RFF WSf^fT^HI^ ^ET ^ji^ii^i^^ ^til<H4i(o, f^<ns<H^< ^..........<?:.:....^:..tJ..t>:Z.1/...^ 3^1 -CRRT (ijcji^^) i^nw^^^nt^ -")--' fbod ^aid On 13-02-2002 when the daimant MOR 9901 along with a bag of from Abhanpur to Raipur, the saic| as a result of which the claimaht cjaimant preferred an applicatiorl compensation on account of the i| acddent. The appljcant jn his writte^ driver of the truck denied the factilm Insurance Company jn its written claimant was traveling in the passenger and therefore, Insurande payment. Learned Tribunal on a clo^e Imaterial available on record and thle Iparties passed the jmpugned aw^rd |favourof the dajmant and agains |the Insurance Company from its Ijajbjli jgratuitous passenger hence this rev| Learned counsel appearingl Isubmit that at the time of acddent jin the truck but were pedestrians |Tribuna! has wrongly fastened thej jowner, exonerating the Insurance ^prf^pftt ^TTR^ff ^ fe^ ^R^K i73tRR^?l^T was sittjng in the truck No. grains and was coming truck met with an aocident, sustained jnjuries. The daiming Rs.2,50,000/- as ijuries sustained in the said statement along with the of accident. Respondent istatement pieaded that the truck as a gratuitous ^ Company js not fiable for Ijajbjlity ^crutiny of the evidence led, submlssions made by the awarding Rs.5,000/- jn the appeliant, exonerating hotding claimant to be (sion. for the appjicant wouid ^he personswere not sittjng ^nd, therefore, the (earned |tiability upon the appllcant C()mpany from its (jabfjjty. + -HG—78 'NI^CTI ^Nl<ts ~3~^T ^lt<lltd<LI, ^tl1^4i<o, [^<rsi^^< ^........^...^,,./..^^, 3^r ^n^ ('^3^^) aii^i ^T'f^'N^ • ^T. r Kvr ^ ^ filejd ^ ! have heard the learned have carefutly gone through the r^c In the written statement the driver of the vehicle, factum ^nofcasked anything in the suggesting the jnjured person a^ accident and, therefore, mere st4t pleading jf disbelieved by the Trib(| committed any illegaljtyin dojng s4. It is trite jaw that no amourit into without pleading. The Tribunaf regarding the fact that said truck as gratuitous passeng^ deserves to be upheld. No other g| For the foregoing reasons, the revision fited by the applicant (iabfe to be and is hereby dismjsse^i findi(ig <^l^fo41y? HR^ff ^ f^^ <f^t^l< ^a^a^T <(;ounsel for the appjjcant and r^cord. by the appjicant along wjth )f accident itself was denied; crojss-examfnatjon of applicant a pedestrian at the time of st^tement of the driver without linal then the Tribunal has not ourlt of evidence can be tooRed recorded by the learned thejcfaimant was traveljng in the ^r is based on material and gl-ound has been raised. |do not find any substance Jn Therefore, the revjsion is at admission stage. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge I-