@ nHLGH CmgynRT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH n:BIL,A§__P___U_E . CORAM : HON’BLE S—i'im SR. NAYAK, CJ. 8: HON’BLE SHRI D.R. DESHMUKH, J. Misc. Aggeal No. 101 8 of 2005 WW—s aqmmmmw{m} W—WW%,WH Eqmm‘ womwmm W,W {m} ‘ _m_ 1. mmwm maam,ww%aw%31fm%z6 waré.&.w§$w w.m,wmml§m§f {an} 3am WWW—1M2. args4w,i%w,{ww} mmm,w 2.. www%ww% 3. WWWWW W,W Present: Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, Iearned Sr. Advocate with Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counse! for the appellant. Oral Order (3m January, 2006) .L The following order of the Court was passed by 3. R. Nayak, CJ. . The appenant -7 insurance Company wants go deny its liability to pay compensation on the ground that there exists no policy to cover the Vx\ risk. This contention raised before the MACT was rejected by the MACT, because, certified copy of the seizure memo EXP/3 was produced before the MACT to show that the policy covering the risk was seized in a criminai proceeding and it is a matter of record. As per the record, the policy was in currency upto 26011994, whereas the accident occurred on 07.01.1994, that is to say, we" before the expiry of the policy. The correctness of the above facts is not seriously disputed before us. The facts stated supra speak for themselves. The above facts would make it very clear that the risk was covered by the policy and the liability to pay compensation fastened on the lnsurance Company - appellant by the MACT is justified as well as legal. There is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. \\ 5w. 5dr orLlp RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH r. l CHHIF JUSTICE i. Judge