—l»c,^ /^. "\ i. .^SS!9s^1 HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISSARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) N0. 527 OF 2010 APPELLANTS 1. Vimal Kumar Bandhe, S/o Mehaturam Bandhe, Casts - Satnami, 2. Mehtaru Ram S/o Bhaneshwar Bandhe, Aged about 55 years, Caste Safnami, Both are R/o Village - Nardha, P.S. Jamul, Distt. Durg (C.G.) RESIPONDENTS 1. Versus Smt Khediya @ Khedan Bai, W/o Kaihan Sahu, agsd about 45 years, R/o Viilags - Borsi, P.S. Kumhari, Post- Kapsada, Tahsil - Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. Reiiance General Insurance Company Ud. Through: Divisiona! Manager, Ravibhawan, Room No.124, 126, in front of Krishna Compiex, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) M.A.fONO. 541 OF 2010 APPELLANTS 1. Vimal Kumar Bandhe. S/o Mehaturam Bandhe, Aged about 25 years, Caste Satnami, 2. Mehtaru Ram S/o Bhaneshww Bandhe, Aged about 55years, Caste SatnarRi, Both are R/o Wllage - Nardha, P.S. Jamul, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^ VMSfiS RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Johatri Bai, W/o Arjun Yadav. aged about 45 years, R/o Viltage - Borsi, P.S. Kumhari, Post- Kapsada, Tahsil - Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Through: Divisiona! Managsr.Ravibhawan, Room No. 124, 126, in front of Krishna Compiex, Raipur, Tahsjl & Distt. Raipur "^ '%,. "vyi/ ^S'!-^.^^ M.A.(C! N0.54301= 2010 APPELLANTS 1. Wmal Kumar Bandhe, S/o Mehaturam Bandhe, Agsd about 25 years, Casde - Satnami, 2. Mehtaru Ram S/o Bhaneshwar Bandhe, Aged about 55 years, Caste Satnami, Both are R/'o Village - Nardha, P.S. Jamul, Distt. Durg (C.G.) - Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Meena Bat, W/o Bhagirathi Sahu, aged about 40 ysars, R/o Viliage - Borsi, P.S. Kumhari, Post- Kapsada, Tahsii - Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. Reliance Generai Insurance Company Ud. Through: Divisional Manager, Ravibhavan, Room No.124, 126, in front of Krishna Compiex, Raipur, Tahsi! & Distt. Raipur MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT. 1988. (Sinate Bsnch: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri Shashank Thakur, counsel for the appeliants. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24th day of June,2010) M.A.(C). No. 527/2010, M.A.(C). No. 541/2010 and M.A.(C). No.543/2010 arise out of the same accident and, therefore, are being disposed of bythe common order. 2; The facts in brief are as under: Oti 28-09-2008, the vehicle (Matador) bearing registration No. C.G. 07 ZB 0966, due to rash and negligent driving of tfte driver turned turtle as a result of which Smt. Khediya Bai, Smt. Johatri Bai and Smt. Meena Bai who were sitting in the matador as passengers, sustained multiple injuries. 3. By fiiing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehfcies Act (for short 'the Act'), the aforesaid ciaimante have preferred elaira avs ^l'iife^x| ' petition claiming compensaCon of Rs.2,67,030/-, 1,05,000/- and 1,20.000/- respectively for the injuries sustained by them in the said accident. 4. In repiy to the cfaim petition, the appellants who were owner and driver of the offending vehicle have taken a plea that vide Ex. D-1, the claimants and the appeiiants have entered into an agreement under which th6 appellants have paid Rs.25,000/- to each of the claimants/injured persons and in pursuance thereof they were agreed not to file any case claiming compensation for the said accident, and, therefore, the ctaimants are not entitled for any compensation and their claim petitions being not maintainable deserves to be dismissed. 5. The claimants examined themselves and on behatf of the appellants, Vimal Kumar, owner ofthe said vehicle was examined. 6. The leamed Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made held that the contract afieged to be entered into between the aDDeltants as well as claimants in terms of Ex. D-1 is void and not enforeeable in law. assessed the compensation and awarded Rs.55,445/-, 20,19S/- and 33.02S- respectively. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appetlants would submit that the plea regarding payment of Rs. 25,000/- to each injured persons, has been taken by the appellants in their written statement but the same has not been controverted by the clafmants by denying the same in their claim petition; the appellante have examined the owner ••ofthe vehicle to prove the document Ex. D-1. Although the daimants have denied receipt of any such amount pursuant to the document Ex. D-1 but the evidence adduced by the appellants is more reliable and clinching in nature than the evidence adduced by the claimants and therefore, the amount of award ought to have been reduced by ttie leamed Tribunal accordingly i.e. by reducing Rs.25,(XX)/- from the amount of award but the same has not been done and thus the leamed Tribunal has committed illegality in passing the award impugned. 8. I have heard leamed counsel for tfie appeltants and perused the record of the Tribunal. Kw 9. There is no requirement of law to confrovert the averments made by the respondent in the pleadings by the appellants. It is settled law that it is for the respondents to prove the defence taken by them by adducing legal, ciinching and cogent evidence. It is also not in dispute that the agreement prohibiting the other party to pursue his remedies in the Court of taw being against the publjc poticy is void. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has rightly discarded the pleading ofthe appellants regarding payment of Rs. 25,000/- to each injured persons as mentioned in the agreement Ex. D-1. No other polnts have been raised. 10. In view of above, l do not find any substance in the appeals. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appetlants being devoid <rf merits are iiable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. 11. A copy of the order be placed in M.A.(C) No. 541/2010 & M.A.(C)No.543/2010. Sd/- N.K. Agarwa! Judge -H