1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. First Appeal No.694 of 2009 [The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Praveen Madhukar Soyam & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.M. Ukey, Adv., for the appellant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI,J. DATE : 14th July, 2009. 1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company. 2. The Award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 25 of 2001 under the Motor Vehicles Act, granting compensation of Rs. 94,578-00 with interest is under challenge. 3. Heard learned Adv. Mr. S.M. Ukey for the appellant. 4. The Insurance Company had defended the claim. Summary of defence is noted in Para 4 of the Award, which reads as follows:- 4. Insurance Company also denied all the contentions including age, nature of injuries, alleged permanent disability and called on 2 the applicant to prove all the particulars strictly. In the alternative it is also contended by the insurance company that the applicant himself was rash and negligent. At the time of mishap he was riding his cycle in a zikzak manner and due to which he fell down on his own. Non-applicant No.3 therefore, disowned the liability to pay the compensation. 5. In the trial, the Insurance Company, however, felt content with its Written Statement and cross-examination of the witnesses. 6. Learned Member of the Tribunal found evidence of the applicant worthy of trust, without contest or rebuttal evidence by the respondent-Insurance Company. The observations and findings of the learned Member of the Tribunal in this regard read as follows:- 11. ........................... ..........In view of the above evidence and since there is no iota of evidence, except the whisper in the written statement that the applicant was riding his cycle in a zikzak way, and therefore, he met with an accident, carries no meaning. Moreover, it is not believable that a student who was going to appear for SSC examination would ride a cycle in a zikzak manner. Therefore, that defence appears baseless and false. 7. Thus, it is a case where the matter had proceeded without a contest. The Tribunal found the claim to be duly proved. 3 8. The Insurance Company had raised a specific plea of the applicant himself being rash and negligent, but chose to keep itself away from disproof of facts proved by the claimant. 9. In the aforesaid premises, just because the Insurance Company is aggrieved by the order is no ground for the challenge. Though in the Appeal Memo, various grounds are raised, those are superficial and carry no substance. 10. In the circumstances, appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 4