'^^^^' i1'1^!;?®1-3 "..-;»' THE COURT OF BIIASPUR Inisc. Appeal No. APPELLANT Det'endatit No.3 .9H//200 The Oriental Insurancs Korba, ttu-ough its Divi.aional Manager, Bilaspur (C.G.). 'ersua - RESPONDENT Claimant , ,\ ^- A^t-^y ^¥% Slii-i Raj Kutuai-, ^•"... »>••„< ^y ^^''...-•• Defeadatit No. 1 / 8/o 8hri Hemlal Sahu, R/ o Chuna Bhatta, Podi Bhata, hi ths Nagar Palika Akaltara, JanjgiT Chainpa IC-.O.}, At preaent E/o Lal Khadan, BUaapur (C.G.). Shs-i Kashalya Sitlgtl, 40 years, S/ o Slu-i Magan Singli, E/o Jagmahant, P.S. Janj^r, District - Champa Janjgu- (C.Q.). UMDER SECTIO»173 OF T^MQTOR •V^CLES ACT. XI-HC-78 :3^ HWWI sb^ltti 3^ ";<i'!<i<n<i, aTfl+f'Ko, fai-iiuy __ A).0. Afc . ^L/f wr 200^ Sll^l 4s|ch (li,clI^'sl<^T) 3n^rwR-<i<* (PITSTI^TsbHiqi S-" ?T(ITWHf?(T3T1^T 13-02-2007 Shri A!i Asgar, Counsel for This Miscellaneous Appeai notlce to the respondents. tl^s appellant. |is being disposed of finally without The impugned award has b| for the appellant only on the groun|d take into consideration the fact thai the ciaimant, it was cleariv stated tflis for unioading bricks which was a poiicy bythe insured, it being insur^< Re!iance was placed on >^en assailed by the learned counsei that the iearned M.A.C.T. faHed to in the F.1.R. lodged bythe father of the tractor troiley had been taken lclear admission showing breach of r^d oniyfor agricultural purpose. Gluruvachan Kaur and Others Vs. tltat Having heard learned coun^e! advanced cannot be countenancedi lead any evidence before the iearnf The oral evidence led by the daim^nt trolley was being used for agricultip As regards the F.t.R., it is pertin) iodged by the claimant but v/as loc|ged mention that the accident had ocdurred iXsXt-t- but clearly Ghpwo that the accidenf been emptied and the tractor troi case iaw cited, being cleariy distii of this case. In this view of the that the learned M.A.C.T. has claimant and compensation of R| 'hl<lfa<fl-< lltKlT^'fei^ <Rl'WK ^srf^iTsn^T jeported in 200S A.CJ. 649. for the appeliant, the arguments since the appeilant-insurer did not id M.A.C.T. to show breach of poiicv. ;nt deariy establisSied that the tractor ^ral purpose at the time of accident. to note that the same was not bv his father. The F.1.R. did not during transportation of bricks had occurred after the bricks have ;y was returning to the village. The le does not app!y to the facts am of the considered opinion itly relied on the testimony of fhe i.25,000/- awarded bv the ieamedr^" injjuishabl rriatter, ridh XI-HC-78 HI+1MI ShHlch ~FS( nq|t||<nq, ®Tf1u'IS,IsK-ll'My m.fl-/vo- ^t/f WT 200S 311^1 '4;iq»('i?^'5"^) sn^rqfirf^riq; (raT3'n^Tst>tii<t> ?:RiRRfff?cr3n^r ng devoid.of merit is dismissed. No M.A.C.T. for the injuries sustained] with. in the result, this appeal be] order as to costs. In view of above, I.A.No.229p/2006 for out of turn hearing stands disposed of. I i'- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge <!hiifa41-< tii>iflTfftei3'<,f5i^i<. ^iSri^R'SD^T by the claimants cannot be faulted