^.j-,a^w^SSS»ati!esiMsSSa! fSa,S5^^».^^^ .^ IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) No. AV3 /2009. APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS ^.6^&w) @.---";^^';-^T^.^ ^•^Atil^' '^ (^.\G^ ,,.^8^ " ,...-^- ?5P;»?" Rs^c.! 'liuiuji Uai.jii;! Mahesh Ram Banchhor, Son of Janak Ram Banchhor, aged about, 56 years, Smt. Sarswati. Devi Banchhor, aged about 46 years, Wife of Mahesh Ram Banchhor, Both are Resident of Village Hathkhoj, Police Station Jamul, Bhilai, District Durg (C. G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT (2_ Divisional Manager, National Insurance Compnay Ltd. Bh^ftan Complex, G. E. Road, Po^er House Bhilai, District Durg (C. G.) APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram: Hon'bleShri T.P. Sharma & Hon' ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ M.A.(C)No.213of2009. APPEU-ANTS Vs. Respondent Mahesh Ram Banchhor, son of Janak Ram Banchhor, aged about 56 years. Smt. Sarswati Devi Banchhor, aged about 46 yeare, wife of Mahesh Ram Banchhor. Both are resident of village HaUikhoj, Police Stadon, Jamul, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). Divisional Manager, Nattonal Insurance Company Limited., Bhutan Complex, G.E. Road, Power House Bhilai, District Durg (CG). (Appeal underSection 173ofthe MotorVehtete Act, 1988). Present: Shri Rajesh KumarSharma, coureel forthe appellante. Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, counsel for the respondents. Oral Order (Passed on 2-2-2010) Per T.P. Sharma, J. By this appeal the appetlants have challenged the award dated 28-11- 2008 passed by IXth Additional Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunat") (FTC), Durg, District Durg in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 84 of 2007, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed on behalf of the appellants on account of death of theirdaughter namely Ku. Rashmi who died in motor accident while driving the vehicle Heropuch bearing regi^ation No. CG07/B/8587 owned by the appellant No.1 which was insured during the time of accident with the respondent. The tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that no extra premium was paid by appellant No.l/owner for third party and in absence eS such ^ 1" contract/insurance for third party, Uie respondenVlnsurance company is not liable to pay any compensation on account of death or injuries caused to third party. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the impugned award. From perusal ofthe impugned award, it reveals that no extra premium has been paid by appetlant No.l/owner for covering the risk ofthird party. Appellant No.1 is the owner of the vehicle bearing registraUon CG.07/B/8587, and at the time of accident, the said vehicle was driven by his daughter, which was insured with the respondent. According to terms of contract/lnsurance, respondent was not liable for damages/compensation caused to third party. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly dismissedthe claim petition. On due consideration, we do not flnd any illegality or infirmify in the impugned award passed by the leamed Tribunal which warrants interference of this court. In the result, ttie appeal is liable to be and Is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd;- R.N. Chandrakar Judge -"'y