IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (227) N0. ^Sr0\ / 2011 ^.- PETITIONER (CEsroA'^^?'.^o.3> IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Limited, First Floor, Plot No. 7, Quality Business Centre, Zone II, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh VERSUS RESPONDENTS <*-L-^;M^7§- 1. -' Smt. Kunwar Bai Kurre, wife of Late Shrj Shatrughan Prasad Kurre, aged about 24 years, resident of Village Sonpairi, Thana Mandirhasod, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. -' Kumari Priyanka, daughter of Late Shri Shatrughan Prasad Kurre, aged about 3 years, being a minor through her mother Smt. Kunwar Bai 3. Kumari Ratna, daughter of Late Shri Shatrughan Prasad Kurre, aged about 1 year 4. Kumari Jamuna, daughter of Late Shri Shatrughan Prasad Kurre, aged about 1 year Respondeht No. 3 &4 being minor through their natural guardian being mother Smt. Kunwar Bai, wife of Late Shri Shatrughan Prasad Kurre 5. Bhagwanten Bai Kurre, wife of Shri Shiv Prasad Kurre, aged about 58 years Shiv Prasad Kurre, son of Shri Parasram Kurre, aged about 60 years All resident are Village Sonpairi, Thana Mandirhasod, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7. Ravi Das Manikpuri, son of Shri Bhagat Das Manikpuri, aged about 35 years, resident of Village Parsada, Thana Sarangarh, District Rajgarh, Chhattisgarh (DRIVER) 8. Shri Rajat Mittal, son of Shri Suresh Mittal, resident of Rest House Road, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (OWNER) 9. Anil Agrawal, son of Shri Raghuveer Prasad Agrawal, aged about 30 years, resident of Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Presently residing at Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh WRIT PET1TION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CQNSTITUTIONPF INDIA FOR1SSUANCE OF APPRQPRIATE AND SUJTABLE WRITS^DIRECTlpN OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS ^^ W.GHCOVSfrOV CHHAmSGARH AT BIIASPUR W.P. (227) N0. 2001 OF 2011 PBTITION^l/ RESPONDENT N0.3 RESPONDENTS/ CLADffANTS IFPCO Tokio Oeneral Insiirance Co. Limited. Versus Smt. Kunwar Bai Kurre and others. WRFT PEH'mON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OPTHE CONSTrTUTTON OPINDIA (SIatde Bench: Hon1»IeShri N.K.-Aasu-wal. J.t Present : Shri Amrito Das, counsel for fhe petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 13th day ofApril, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. The Instant petition calls in question the legaltty and propriely of the order dated 20-01-2011 passed by 10*11 Additional Motor Accident Clalms Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 135/2009 whereby the petitfoner's application filed under Section 65 of fhe Evidence Aet for admitting the secondaiy evidence is dismissed. 3. Brieffacts of fhe case are as unden The respondents/claimants flled a clalm petition claiming Rs. 17,15,000/- as compensation for the death of one Shatruhan Prasad Kurre in the accident dated 13-07- 2008 by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle fTruck) bearing registration No. C.G. 14- Z.C./0281. 4. Petitioner/Insurance Company flled its written stateinent tn which factum of insiirance has not been speciflcaUy demed. It was also not pleaded that any poltey issued is ineffective as fhey have canceUed such T BB' ffi:j policy due to dis-honour of cheque issued by fhe owner of the vehicle on account of payment of premium. 5. After closure of claimants' evldence, an application was filed under Section 65 of fhe Evidence Act seektag admission of secondary evidence of a memo issued by fhe Bank. According to fhe petitioner, fhe cheque has been dis-honoured as its payinent was stopped by fhe owner of the vehicle. Fact regarding canceUation of policy on account of dlshonour of cheque was not pleaded in fhe written statement filed ty the petitioner and was never matter in issue in the case. Fiirfher nothing has been produced showing when and in what manner, petitioner has lost the ongmal nor petitioner has filed any copy of Fu~st toformation Report wlfh r^ard to loss of origtaal document. Moreover, above document can be proved by fhe petitioner by caUing the Bank Officer as his witoess in accordance wifh law. 6. In such circumstances, in fhe considered opinion of tlus Court, fhe leamed Tribunal has not committed any illegality in dismisslng fhe application wan~antmg interference of thls Gourt under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.' 7. It is weU settled principle of law that fhis Court, in exerclse of its supervisoiy jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, shoiild refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by ttie Court below, except tn such cases where perversily, Ulegality, irregularity or jurisdlctional error is writ large on the face of fhe record, whlch is not ia the present case. 8. Accordingly, fhe petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 'sss^' Kvr y^i^WM ^yyws^^w