••:.'\-^s^'-?^r^^^^'^a^^ HlGI-fG(3URTK<l)il::CI-il-lft1~rlSGARI-lATBlLASRUR SinflleBench ?: Hon(l»ltEShFi5DiliURS6slil'ieB;BeslimukH.,J. MiscellarigousADDeal?(C.lN().4026f2Q071 AttDellaiTt'S°W:'W:,'' NQn-ABi(>lit;a>nKNb;2 .Jabbgir:^:BStig,','S/o.:.l:Ka|arn.,::Baig,, ^e(:l:?;®at3oujt&i:K'4Q?sxyeaBs,,'^:.®/Q. Nayap^ 'Siniga, TahsilSSiiTiga,; :Distt.Baipu^(G^)''::.::^;^;^'%,::.;^i, versus iReSROndehts ARDlicariits ^ !ll J!ffiiW;,A,;P IMIBIBBii II ,:§mf^;ShyamyatiSI-ahre,W/o:Laxnir Nai'ayan Lal-jre, a^ed ?ibput 47 "ygarg^^:;.:.: ,.,',,:;;„ ^^ ;.^ :..,;.'..^^M ^Xu.^:.;^Sur®kh%z:^;\,:Dte':,.;iSLate^ ?Laxminarayan4;^@,?&,l-si|a,3^a9®clE .iabout^15gyears^^iTiii'(ORi;thiroug|i|: i::mothe&l:"SHvaitiyatrte'l.atire:,wVV/c([ YLaxminarayan^l.,&hre:;:^:';::::.^:{:::^,;^: ..ABovei'all' gesider ^^T'ihuRar?l,, ,^j]nFlga»^D,iStt.%ait3<.ir<((333.)^::f,,;iy: |,g^^'t||^^g§|si|ig||j;guiis®£|i ^UBiIBSIBjiSIBBMiBWi |B|sjfiiiijij|;(j©B©i^|»%^.?^;-]^ !|l||i|R|jI81j|||l..afc;j:^|ji^|Eiv,].^®^|:' y^sssaasfisjstf^iss^t.^ gUBgg|gj|^||JaBgt|igg8||@|j|S^ |iigg3iisi:igiiilsBi|i$sKuR®©;Di; lilliv^lBfgittlgji'f^nctjngi.'ygl'iiGlg, |iN<t0SSitZffii|i5(:l)5'£^N.^I^i,^P ^tKisSffiiN^w^^tl'idjat.a^lnsuFanc^' l|g^In|gn^:;l|imilBB^B['an^t'i,[©ffiGe^ ;^a|ti»ISunjg^pvi|git.ini|liBalodS.: ^B§zai-gDjitn^Raiipur<©.(3.)^;^::::::l^'l:"j:: RQli^No^&1IO^'l7S/Qig58^ ^^^^^ lrisuraneeF^Ei0(dfron'i;%@/1"l/C)Sft3t l:.25/i.we'::::';^.^^:'^.^:'.^.'& ADDealuhdeFlSec^i6rTS73;!SElh^lVlatOF^/et'iBles^cti8988 :SERiMN8iSntBKRSit ®SiiNOT®BE8ili£iaritSi£l!?''?;, 1 '1): • ! itl'll :iil :Mll L!1W!1!;.;L '@:esentl'';;S^I.SKri-Vivek.;Rathare^unse|:f6r^h^ .^%®;M^©^iM@ISf;^': :'J '-MMiw':S?(Ra6]sl<:!lslrUilfi|B|in)aaFy> ^Meaiy^oroMmissioni^^^,^^ %•',••,.:.;"• Btl.IS BlS;w""**»"BS4!l«a SSS^^^^^Ss ~.y[~~s» seaiT~js ag/ -:»• (2) The only groundurged by Shri Vivek Rathore, learned coynsel fdr the appellant in this appeal is that theAdditional Mptor Accidents Claims Tribynal, Bhatapara (heneeforth 'the MACT') ought notto haveexonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay eompensation because the testimony of Jabbar Baig, the appellant/owner pf Jeep Nb.CG 04/ZD/2950) revealed that the deeeased was not being carried for hire in the jeep. However, theabove argument advanced by leamed counsel for theappellarit cannot becouhtenancedfqrtw6reasons;firstlybecauseitis not in dispute that the jeep No. C.G. 04 ZD 2950 was insured onlyfor private use and lastly because there is ovetwtTelming evidence on recprd fo show thafthe deceased was beirig Carried r hii'e.bythe driyer. The testimony oftheappellant/Qwner.ofthe^ep'isncrtaceei^Blebe^^ was nof present atlhfetimet<rf6c(;urFence^^he;M.A-G;T'^^^ theansurance c»mRany;js.nst?liabile^^Ra^thecQm gitJuhd'wras^ui^ed.'y '^l:'r;.:..^.;' (3) In thisview ofthematter, there is ho meritjn Ihis appeal, which is acconlingly dismissed atthestageofadmission. : (4) Corisequently, I.A.No.1 fprstayalsostandsdispoSed of. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Gopal !!i ^~;^-i^^^^"; 'sSSSSSBK