CWW/ '4 gN THE Elm COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASRIR (C.G.) mITIoNEgL NON - APPLICANT station road Durg, Branch Durg (C.G.) /National Insurance co. ltd. §ESPONDENTS Nanhe Gautam s/o Ramnarayan A PPLICANTS Gautam,aged 26 years, R/o Shankar Nagar Durg Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) Dayashankar Agrawal s/o shr‘i Krishna Gopal Agrawal, aged 48 years (Truck - Owner) Rampyare s/o (Driver) ii aged 45 years c/o Dayashankar Agrawal §oth R/o 37/3 Nehru Nagar East Bhilai Nager Distt. Durg (COG.).; Beniram Sahu , s/o Shri Govenihan , aged 43 years, (Tempo - 0Wner) R/e Polsai Para; i Durg,"1:‘Distt. Durg (C.G.) Seventh Additional Motor accident claims Tribunal truck courts) Durg,Distt Durg ‘(C.G.)‘ i‘lgg’l‘ PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/ 227 6i THE CONSTITUTION QF INDxA FOR mSUANcE OF MANQAMUs-,£§gg3£*'3mTION AND OTHER 15'. SUHABLE wRIT OR WRIT ‘A‘ND iD'IR ew OR DIRECTIO (n N. ’a ¢ SINM I'HGH COIRT OF J’UDICATIRE CHHAI‘mSGARI-I: BILASPUR NGLE BENCI-n. HON'BLE SPRI Inc. N 1t Petition No.1971 of 2903 National Insurance Co.Ltd. BHADOO .‘ J Wr Vet su$ Nanhe Gautam and others. pos'r Fen mam ON 10th N4; @@ Sd/— L.c.BHADoo Judge July, 2003 . HIGH COKKT OF JIDLICVATmEHQhiATVTIWSGMARI-bv ‘BILASPm M SINGLE BENCH: HON‘BLE SPRI L.C.BHADOO. J writ pet-4:15;: No.1971 of 2003 National. Insurance Co. Ltd.. Vet SIIS Nanhe Gautam and others. Present: - shri VAshck Kama: Gupta. Advocate for the petitione: ORDER (passed on WpJuly. 2003) ay this urn: petition under Articles 226 s. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner company has challenged the order dated 31 3t march. 2003. passed by the Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims 1 ‘ Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Durg. by which the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of .3.900/- in favour of respondent No.1 and against th petitioner. respondent No.2 the met of the truck and sondent No.3 the driver of the truck. jointly a separately. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner cpany in this petition is that respondent No.3 who as driving the truck bearing regi stration .CIR/854 No5 at the time of the accidmt was not in possession of a valid driving licence and he was in possesion of a forged and fake licence. Therefore. the Tribunal without considering this fact has wron aarded the /’\ compensation. / ‘\ x \ i r' 7 / Rs e rep nd om w s gly w 3 2 - ' g 3. e pesal of the order of the lened Tribual shows that in para 16 he Tribun as considered this spect and reached to the colusion that the licence n ueston Le. 'No..75228 renewed by the R.T.o. Raipur and me R.‘r. Raipur ised t certified co of the same. ne ide reneal the lince by the 31; Raipur, the earne Tribunal rach to the nclusion that resoadent o.3 w of ce R50 ld was in possession of valid driving licenc, Thereore, it cannot be said that he rned Tbunal has not considered this aspect while passing the award and the learned Tribunal after giving the valid reasons has not acceeded to the argument of the company. This ha een proved by a witness amly sanjay Agrawal. Relying on the evnce and the 4. Therefore. I am o£ the opinion that the zlearned Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned award and the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned ordero Therefore. there is no reason betore this Court to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal. 5. In the result. this petition is withou force and the same is accordingly. dismissed " Sdl- \ L.c.BHADoo Th ru ar n , t al h a nc i qi licenceR was o. su he s b py eed co p N a e f t lea ri t