FEE:’ ‘v ‘ < l\IB)l‘\ Iii N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATU’RE AT BILASPUR / / M.A.4’€’7»—I2005 ~ The Oriantal Insurance Co. Ltd. Through :— Divisiona‘l Maneger Division Office In front of High Couit Bilaspur (C.G.) esgonden Smt.Nirmala Bansaki W/O Purshotam Aged 48years Q; . Rajendra Bansal’Q/O‘ Purshotam Aged 26 years LXR/akesh Bansai’éo Pursotam ° Aged 24 years / v AII RIO Kashayap Collony Teiipara Tah.& Dist. Biiaspur (C.G. w I , Rts )” HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR .\ Misc. Aggea! under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act! 1988 Sm Ee Bench Hen'bEe Shn N K A arwa! J : Aash hr cous fe appehan Sh o Tekam ccuse! fer t respenden ORAL ORDER {sed an sf , 1 s nsur appea nst the ard datd 12 004 passed by “ ona! oto ent Ci un asr (hernt refre to as he Tue rey an aoun of 1 OO/— s been arded fav th aims h e atives o te cd m a ! mti arnt el , (FTC) Blfpu eiafer erd t ribn!) wheb mt Rs 00 O ha wa En our of e clant wo ar Iegal represent f h deease Purshotta Lt Bansa as copensaon age the applant herein dnt he e oda w om nv endin hict n grette o CG 10BA/13 Ael ounde‘ e k of owner-cu e to he extent f _ R 0 000/: b nte t sp conra th wr te hicle, y ig /— as hefo s h ve and b chargn of Rs.50 premium terr. it i also n sput no defenc is ken \by e appetla/tsuranc ompany the wten statement led by that r f te vecte as brached t oondn f t y ln mch he riv f e ndlno vehrc vm valld and effecttve drlvmg license to dnve the motor cycle In 2. Amedty, t dceased Purehm La! as wner-cu- der of the offg vee (Motorcycle) beang retran N /09 ppant/tnsurance Comeany had not i die e ta th g ntne C In nt f it owne o h hl h e he rtro o l‘e pollc as u as t der o th offe le was not hag question 8 ' Learned Trial Court on apprecratton of ewdence led material placed and submrsstons made based on P A coveraoe s NRA. NO. 4G2 OF 2&¢5 Present chiivm Misa ne orth t rl Vind n he ts Pas 14 t day Rnumh .353 } mts : iers l agai aw e 29—— 2 10 Addltl Mr Acold arms Tnbal raken th tre m drivr t o e 0 y ering mo ecrai tct wi the one of APPELLANT! ‘ : The NeN-APPLICANT Onentaf Insurance Ltd Versus RE$?ONBEN_T$I APPUCANTS Smt. Nirmaia Bansa! «_ ,.‘ awarded. Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. Thearguments raised bylthe appeliant/ insurance \ Company that the driver was not having vaiid and effective driving license Was rejected. 4. Shri Mishra,. ieamed counsel appearing for the appeiiant/insurance Company would submit: award is bad in law ‘ in as much as the deceased was not having valid and effective _ driving iiCense at the time of accident. 5. l have heard iearned counsel for the appeliant. 6. Plea, that deceased was not having vaiid and effective driving'license at the timeof accident was net taken in the written statement flied by the appellant. It is settled law, fact net pleaded, evidence on such facts cannot be looked into. Appeiiant/insurance Company also failed to prove the fact that _ appeliant was not haVing prOper license by leading cogent evidence; Annexure A40 filed by the claimants would reveal deceased was having proper license to drive the motorcycle with j gear at the time of accident. It is not a case of the appellant that renewal entry entered into Annexure A-tO is forged or fabricated. 7. in View of the above. i do not find anysubstance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal’be‘ing devoid of substance isvliable to be and is hereby" dismissed at motion stage. No order asto costs .