c^- ^ . .i.rl-' IN THE HI6H COURT JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal [Cl No. OF 2010 APPELLANT ^Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company v^- ^ <4^?'^^ Limited, through Branch Manager, Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Marg, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) y'...- ^ ^' ><» ..•••-y^ ^•.^y y ^ RESPONDENTS ^CLAIMANTS 1. ^ 2^ ^ bRIVER VERSUS Smt. Rajkumari W/o Late Onkar Nath Upadhyay , aged about 60 years. Ku. Sita Upadhyay, b/o Late Shri Onkar Nath Upadhyay, aged about 24 years. (^^ ^od^oL^^^^V^^»'<ul^<~Q^pvh. ^xajyu^ G^fi-'J <?-TST^ Anil Yadav S/o Chowaram Yadav aged about 35 years, R/o Khedmara, Near NavatalabJoxwA, Oistrict Ourg C.G. Kulbir Singh S/o ShriRam Snehi Singh Aged about 28 R/o B-202 Shri Ram heritage, Katora Talab Raipur C.G. APPEAL U/S"173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE AWARD/ORDER DATED 30711.2009 PASSEb BY SUSHMA SAWNT. THei4TH UPPER MOTOR ACCIbENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (P.T.C.) ~^^ Raipur. (C.G.) IN C.T.NO.21/2009. OWNER 4. L.——.—._- 1^ . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT Insurer RESPONDENTS M.A (C)No. 299 of 2010 Bajaj Altianz insurance Company Limited. Versus Smt. Rajkumari & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hon'ble Shri N. K. Agarwal & Hon'bie Shri G. IVSinhajuddsn, JJ. Present : Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ghanshyama Patel, Advocates for the appeliant. Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for respondent No. 1&2. ORAL ORDER (Passed 17.G8.2011) Per: N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 30.11.2009, passed by the XIVth Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunat (FTC), Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in ctaim case No. 21/09. 2. As against the compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- daimed by unfortunate widow and daughter of deceased by fliing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') for death of Onkar Nath Upadhyay in an motor accident dated 20.10.2008; the Tribunal awarded a tota! compensation of Rs. 5,05,000/- a!ong with interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence !ed, material placed and submissions made by the parties, he!d : driver of Matador bearing registration No. CG-04-JA-5204 dashed ^ .^^.^t ^' fe^-e^ 1 ^^^•.^—^^^( ^. y .-^' 1— Onkar Nath Upadhyay who was going to his home by his Scooty bearing registration No. CG-04-CV-4392; as a resuft of which he succumbed to the injuries sustainec! in the said accident; insurance company liabie for payment of compensation; assessed and awarded totai sum of Rs. 5,05,000/- along with interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 4. Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counset for the appeliant would submit: the Tribunal h^s erred In holding the appeilant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation to the claimants as the Matador in question was not involved in the said accident. 5. On the other hand, Shri Shlvendu Pandya, learned counse! appearing for the respondent No. 1 & 2 submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly fastened liability upon the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants, therefore, award impugned needs no interference. 6. We have heard the counset appearing for the parties and perused the award impugned. 7. The respondent No. 1 &2 in para 3 of their written statement and para 2 of additional pleadings,have not specificaily denied the factum of accident and invoivement of offending vehicle i.e. Matador bearing registration No. CG-04- JA-5204 in the said accident. Further, the evidence adduced in the case would show the accident had occurred by coliusion between Scooty ,,^^^^^.; ^-:.^ '^ r^s»^^.^ ^••:-^;^,,".: and Matador bearing registration No. CG-04- JA-5204 owned by respondent No. 4-Kulbir Singh and being driven by respondent No. 3-Anil Yadav at the time of acddent. Criminal case was also registered agalnst the driver of offending vehicle. Taking into consideration every aspects of the matter, we have no hesitation to hotd that Matador in question was involved in the accident and plea raised by the counsel for appellant that Matador in question was not involved in the said accident, is sans substance. 8. No other points have been raised. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appea! being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^ Sahu