g frSL/ 3c 31“? FE at»; f I\IBHA\ 7%?E E \‘ Ia) _ .¢ {N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BELASPUR. fL CHHATTESGARH Misceiizmeous Aggezii L‘m 66$ 6f Eimé 46.) Tehsil: Balod, ‘ District: Dm‘g (CG) .?\ k3‘{ _ ‘ t address: Indlra . Nagar, v #3 / QO _ Presen Burg, Supela, District: Durg (C.G.) Mukesh Garg, Sfo Moelchand Gang Aged about 23 years, Sinaka Tractor Colony, GE. Road, Supala, Bhilai, District: Burg, PS: Supela, Tchsil (S; District: Durg (CG) ‘ EV\ Sim. Fekhan Bai, Widow of Hscraram Bandh, Agecf about 60 years: Pv’o Village: Revii, PS: Nandghat: Tehsil: Navagarh, District: Burg (CG) C ‘ E MOTOR VECHICES g, ; S v ‘” ’ \ ‘i J ’ v ‘ ak l,QNNER: CT AIMANT: J AP?EAL UNDER SETKON fr73 OF TH ACT APPELLANT/E /Nati0na1 Insurance its Assistam Manager, {Insumr} Through: C0. Ltd.,, Natisnal Insuranca B-1, Taha Complex ?riya€iarshi11i Nagar. Bilaspur (CG) — Versus - gESPONDENTSf: /1 . Tamaklal (Driver), ' Johanlal Yadav, ((Driver) S/e Johanlal Agad about 40 years, QC‘Q R/o Village: Bh&rmabhafa: \y arwal ‘catc for the appallant. val, Advocate for the respondent S.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice N.K. 02.07.2009 Shri Sourabh Shanna, Adv Shri Sanjay Shyam Agra‘ No.3.. Learned counsel appearing for the palties submits that this appeal can. be heard finally even in the absent ofrespondent No. 1 & 2, and therefore, the appeal is hea eeted by the appellant/Insurance Company against the awatd dat d 05.02.2004, passed'by the 11nd Additional Motor Accident Clai s Tribunal (FTC), Bemetara (for short ‘Tribunal’h in Claim Case Bai v. Tamaklal & Others, whe: passed an award of Rs. 2,74,00C the amount awarded from the and nr appellant/Insurance Company. rd finally. The instant appeal is di l claimants against No. 03/03, in case of Smtt Fekhan ‘eby and whereunder the Tribunal /- alongwith 7 percent intereat on date of application in favour of claimants the rn including mawWmwa—Fswyq 1 [2008 1,00,000‘ I WmMA’ éOé W200 ’ mamW (Wax) arm Ha fates 72a WWW Wm? arm Wt?W ”a techrm a .is Mk @632........................ W200i case are that, the claimant Le: respondent No. 3 filed an app Motor Vehicles Act, claiming ompensation to the tune of Rs. ’61,50,000/- from the owner, pleading inter alia that on 08.01 while driving the offending vehi CG-7/ZC-1122 owned by respondent No, 2 and insured by the son Balwant Singh by rashly and ‘ nggligently driving the offending to the police station Civil Limes, Bilaspur, and the same was registered as Crime No. 22/2003 z The respondent No, 1 filed :gligent act on their part and the respondent/driver had valid drivmg license and vehicle was duly insured by the appellant/Insura liability can be fastened upon the ‘espondent/Driver; The brief facts of th6 appellant, caused the death of her vehicle, The matter was reported .nd the driver was charge sheetedi its written statement pleading inter alia that there is no rash and nr mam: am gammxmqta’na—Fs/95—1 1 noes 1,00,000’ 'cation under Section 166 of the 'ver and insurer of the vehicle 2003, the respondent No. l/driver cle truck bearing registration No. nce Company and therefore, no westW (Wit) hh,x ”7‘ wnmm aT’gEjEmm gwWQFh’EWéW 4 \ Wmawm C“ ’ agafmw—w . um! ' u Wm M @3 WZOO&( amw (133W) “(mafégwqm’ VWTWW Twmwamw K ’ g F anmwm‘gwmk ‘ . $WWE§T The Tribunal, on close scgutiny of the cvidsnce led by tha panics and the material available an the record, passed the impugned award holding the appellant liable to pay the awarded amount. The challenge by the a llant in this appeal is on the p e following grounds: at Because; the aw rd passed by the learned Claime Tribunal fasteni the liability on the Insurance Company is cont ry to the facts, law and evidence available on re'co . b. Because, the lea ed Claims Tribunal oughtto have seen that the resp ndent-driver did not have the valid driving license to rive the offending vehicle, c. Because, even ot erwise, the award passed by the learned Claims T. bunal fastening the liability on the Insurance Comp ny is contrary to the evidence available on rec rd and the hnding recorded is perverse. V The main plea raised by th appellant herein is that the driver of offending vehicle was not havi g valid driving license to drive the memwmm—Fws n/zoox 1,90,000. x n r g9 Mnr [9&3 wzooé” WWm (Wu) \ Mkfwbmmé WNW (W)