,^L£fi dj' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. ( C ) No. ^ 3 7 of 2011 0jvj APPELLANT ^ 1.^ ^":ys } RESPONDENTS ^l. CLAIMANTS ^2- DRIVER OWNER ^- ^5 k6 ; 7. 5 8. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through : its Legal Manager, Reliance General Insuranee Company Limited, 4th floor, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS Ishwari Bai Wd/o Anand Mandal, aged about 32 years,, Ku. Lavina D/o Late Anand Mandal, aged about 15 years, Ku. Nishi D/o Late Anand Mandal, aged about 13 years,-. Himalay Kuma'f S/o Late Anand Mandal, aged about 12 years, Akash Mandal S/o Late Anand Mandal, aged about 06 years, Smt. Bhagbati D/o Late Motilal Mandal, aged about 60 years, Respondents No. 2,3,4 and 5 bemg minor represented through mother Ishwari Bai Mandal, All R/o E.W.S. 179, Sector - 3, Devendranagar Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) Rajesh Kumar Yadav S/o Khedu @ Chhedanlal Yadav, aged about 30 years, R/o Dabarapara Sarojani Chowk, Kurud, P.S. - Kurud, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) Harishankar Sonwani S/o Kanhaiya @ Lakhan Sonwani, R/o village Bhalukona, P.S. - Kurud, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) Appeal Valued at Rs. 13,37,100/- Court fee afflxed at Rs.15/- s-easT^-^"" INN® ^p HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR.6ULAM MINHAJUDDIN. JJ Appellants Respondents M.A. ra No.637/2011 fteliance ^eneral Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ishwari Bai <& others Present: AAr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the appelbnt. Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for the respondents No.l to 6. ORDER (Oral) (12th September. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard, 2, The appellant-Insurance Company has filed this'miscellaneous appeal against the award dated 04.03.2011 passed by the learned 9 Additiona! AAotor Accident Claims Tr-ibunal (FTC), Raipur (for short 'the Cloims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.149/10. 3. The claimants have also filed cross-objection for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the cbimants, who are wife and children of deceased Anand Mandal, have filed a claim petition before the ClaimsTribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.42,50,0000/- for the death of said Anand Mandal, who die,d in a motor accident, which took place on 16.12.2009 at about 6.45 p.m. when motorcycle of the deceased, on which he was going towards Villa9e Awnari from Village Kalle, was dashed by fSantro Car bearing registration number C&04-H-1340 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. The claimants have claimed compensation on the 9round that.they were dependent on the deceased, who was the sole eaming member in the family, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. ^'^^^,, ^•^, if S^...._' " i I ^3®s,| -31 5. Learned counsel for the oppeltant has submitted that at the time of accident the driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence and as such, the vehicle was plied in breach of the conditions of the insurance. Therefore, the oppellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 8, So far as the argument advanced by learned tounsel for the Qppetlant is concerned, Rajesh Kumar Bhargav (NAW-3), who is the employee of Regional Transport Office, ftaipur and produced by the insurance company itself, has stated in his statement that as per record, on the date of accident, the driver was having valid and effedtive driving licence to drive the light motor vehicles. In view of aforesaid fact, we find no force in this argument of learned counsel for the appellant. 9. So far as the cross-objection filed by the respondent-claimants is concemed, the same has been fited after expiry of period of JJmitation and no application for condonation of delay in filing the cross-objection has been filed by the claimants. Therefore, the same isliable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. Even otherwise, the annual income of deceased of the deceased was assessed by the Claims Tribunal in accordance with the statement given by the widow of the deceased and the multiplier has also been applied after considering the age of the deceased, 10.In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross- objectionfiled by the claimants stand dismissed. No order as^to costs, Roshan/- Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge