^A<^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C\ N0. \.58 1 2011 ^lffiB^ ^ipi^i^ ^ N^tlREI ^PPELLANT IN^URER/RESPONDENT N0. 3 ^fCICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., through it's Legal Manager, ICICI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Lal Ganga Shopping Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS /{ RES^ONDENTS ''CLAIMANTS ^ -0^\ ^f^ id--7^0^ k tefo^£>£-AJ7J^).; { E.C$PD/^TbBAlT /JQ. 2-. 1. Shri Chaitram Yadav, son of Bhaskar Yadav, aged about 44 years 2., Smt. Meena, wife of Shri Chaitram Yadav, aged about 30 years 3^ Kumari Aasha Yadav, daughter of •^ ^ Chaitram Yadav, aged about 17 years rVinay Yadav, son of Chaitram Yadav, aged about 16 years 'K Ajay Yadav, son of Chairam Yadav, agedabout15years Respondents No. 3 to 5 being minor through their natural guardian being father Shri Chaitram Yadav Residents of Lodhipara, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Vinod Kumar, son of Gokul Prasad Verma, age not known to the appellant, resident of Village Nandori, Police Station Bhilai-3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (DRIVER) 7^/Sardar Harbhajan Singh, son of Tahal Singh, age not known to the appellant, resident of Tatibandh Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (OWNER) Amrito Das, Advocate I? }w <r^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.rQNo.l58of2011 APPELIANT RESPONDENTS ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. VERSUS Shri Chaitram Yadav & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal Present : Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the appellant. ORALORDER (Passed on 08.02.2011) 1. Heard on IA No. 1, application for condonation ofdelay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration, I am satisfied that the counsel for appellants is succeeded in explaining the delay caused in filing this appeal. Accordingly IA No. 1 is allowed aiid delay caused in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Also heard on admission. 3. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company against the award dated 30.08.2010, passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribiinal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 110/09, whereby an amount of Rs. 1,92,000 /- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants holding the appellant/insurance company liable for its payment after rejecting its plea regarding invalidity of the licenseofDriver. Brief facts of the case according to the appellant are that, on 28.08.2007, Chowa Ram Yadav (since deceased) while riding on Luna bearing registration No. MP-23-C-686, was dashed by the driver of Crane bearing registration No. CG-10-ZB-2052, as a result ofwhich he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 5. As against Rs. 4,43,000/- claimed by the parents ofthe deceased, the Tribunal, awarded tolal sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- as compensation in favour ofthe claimants along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date ofapplication till its payment, 6. Shri Amrito Das, leamed counsel appearing for the appellanl/insurance company would submit that the driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license at the time ofaccident, therefore, the insurance cannot be held liable for payment ofcompensation. 7. I have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the order impugned. 8. The driver of offending vehicle himself has filed a copy of driving license (Ex. D/l) which shows that the same was issued on 18.06.1997 and the same was further renewed for three years w.e.f. 26.04.2008 up to 25.04.2011. Neither any question has been asked by the appellant/insurance company to respondent No. 6 nor any evidence has been adduced showing that on the date of accide'nt the said license was invalid as it was not renewed on that date. Thus, the insurance company has ,,.^^;,, ^'^-A 1""%. /-•^—^^ f &.. ..._ I ^•-,.,^:.>WEV^ ^ ^W^^^ i 1^ fB^;::i "''^S^^S w"...^r ^-^y hmwnwMflni^,.' failed to discharge its burden. In view of above, the grounds taken by the appellant is sans substance. 9. No other grounds have been raised by the appellant. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal has no merit. The same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge