B \ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR Misc.Aroeal No.798 of 2005 COftAM'. Hon'ble Shri S.ft. Nccyak, CJ &. Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Cieshmukh, J. Aooellant (Non-^pplicant No.3) National Insurance Company Limited, adagpur Branch, Through; Ifs Branch Manager, Naveen Market, PFiooJ Chow, Raipur (C.6.) Versus Resoondents (Applicont No.l) (Applicant No.Z) (Applicont No.3) (Applicant No.4) :1. :2. :3. :4. (Non-applicont No.l) (Non-applicant No.2) ;6. Smt. Meena Bai Yadav aged 33 years, W/o Late Nanhu Yadav © Bisram. Laln Ram Yadav, aged 16 yrs. 5/o Nonhu Yadav Ku. Rekha Vadav, aged 13 yeo.rs &/o Ndnhu Yadav.. Raja Ram Yadav, aged 12 years, S/o Nanhu Yadav, Res. No.2 to 4 are minors. Ad - Litem - Gwu'dvm through Mother- Meena Bai Yadav. All are R/o Math Puraina, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) A^ojam Miyan, aged 45 years S/o Balle Minya M.usalmon, R/o Ramnagar, P.5. Dhamaujj^hat, Distt. Dearia (U.P.) (Driver) (At present - Hallmukam Balaji Transport Bhanpuri, Distt. Raipur (C.6.) (Esriver) Sokul Chdnd, s/o Preetam Chand, R/o 6ole Bazar, Fruit Market, Khadagpur, West Bangal, Distt. Midnapore (W.B.) (' Owner ) Shri 5hri &ashrath Supta, Counsel, for the appellant. ORAL ORbER (Passed on 2nd Jonuary 2006) The fotlowin9 oral order of the Court was passed by 5.R.NAYAK, C.J. A V. 1. The appellant-Insurance Company has insured the truck inyolved in the accident. In the written statement filed by the tippellant- Insurance Company before tbe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), among other gnounds, it was contended that the driver of the tractor, the other yehicle involyed in the accident, also contributed to the negligence in cousing the accident. Although such p!ea was token in the written statement, but, admitt'edly, the oppellant-Insurance Compony did not adduce any evidence to substantitste that plea. In other words, the plea taken by the appellant-Insurance Company remained as a plea without any proof. Be that as it mcy, from the evidence on record, the Tribungl or this Court cannot infer contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor, the other vehicle involved in the accident. The factual finding recorded by the M.A.C.T. on the basis of eyidence on record, therefore, cannot be faulted with. 2. The oppeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh— Judge fiE"i pLiytff