a t Sisid^ Bench ^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil RevisionNo.f^/2006 APPLICANT Harbansh Singh S/o- Indarsingh Chawalia, R/o- Baldevbagh, Rajnandgaon TahsU & District Rajnanc^gaon (C.G.) (Owner) VERSUS ^' <<: y ^"' NON APPLICANTS 1) /-Krishana Bhalekar, S/o- Gajanand Bhalekar, Aged about 43 years Occupation Driver (Truck) R/o- Village Churiya, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Driver) .A^ )9..^-V ^) /"*_Rohit S/o- Dauwa, Aged about 32 year, R/o- Nayakbandha, (Abhanpur) TahsU & District Raipur (C.G.) (Qaimant) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Kamthi line, Rajnandgaon through Divisional Managar, Divisionan Office & Kachahari Chowk Raipiir (C.G.) / CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE T t\^ IC—78 "WH^ff^NI^ 's^ ^WM^ ^tTl^^i^, fGi<ni<rili< _...........€:...^../-'.0.: "^2004 s^\-^^ crt^^) ^N^N ^R^ff °^fe^ ^dw^K ^'B't^ra^T ^ f^^'i^ ^m^it^^^N S.B. Hon*bSe Shri Justice N.K. Aa QS-11-2G09 for the appSicant. Shri Basant Dewangan, couns Shri H.S. Patel, counsej for ncjn-applicant No.3. Heard on M.(C).P. Nojl 758/2006, appitoatjon for condonation ofdeiay in flling the r^vision. On due consideration anc( the grounds taken in the appllcation i am satisfied that th^ applicant has succeeded in explaining the cause of delay in Iplsng the revislon. Therefore, M.(C).P. is allowed and the delay hereby condoned. Heard on admjssion. The instant revision js ftledl against the award dated 10-Q5-^ ;aused in ftiing the revjsion Is by the owner of the vehicle 005 passed in Claim Case No.84/2005 by IXth Additional Mc|lorAccident Claims Tribunai (F.T.C.), Raipur (for short 'th^ Tribunal') whereby and whereunder a total sum of Rs.5,OQO/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded jn Ijavour of the jnjured claimant and against the appljcant/ownerl exonerating the Insurance Company, on the ground that thepnjured person was sitfing in the truckasa gratuitous passengefat the time of acddent. Facts briefly stated as under| + =F XI-HC—78 W^?^T^lN . ^^ ^ iflWST ^NI«1» 75ST ^!t1Mld<LI, ^tiltH^<o, f^cni^y _^_ CL^^J^^t_ ^^.......................................-...:y....^ ^QQ ^ ^?n^^ (^f^<^) iw^i^fN^^T On 13-02-2002 when the cl| No. MOR 9901 along wjth a bagi from Abhanpur to Raipur, the sai^ as a resuft of whjch the claimant preferred an app(jcatio< compensation on account of the accident. The applicant in his writteh driver of the truck denied the Insurance Company in its written! claimant was traveling in the passenger and therefore, jnsuran< payment. Learned Tribunal on a materiai available on record and th< parties passed the impugned aw| favour of the daimant and agains the Insurance Company from its gratuitous passenger hence this rei Learned eounsel appearinfe submit that at the time of accident in the truck but were pedestrjansj Tribunal has wrongiy fastened th< owner, exoneratjng the insurance ^prf^NN 'WT^ ^ ^feT€t<M'^I< •^^H^l^T il|imant was sitting in the truck I of pu!ses (Das) was coming truck met wlth an accident, clairr|ant sustained jnjuries. The claiming Rs.1,70,000/- as |njuries sustained jn the said statement along with the fact|imof accident. Respondent statement pleaded that the ^aid truck as a gratuitous (;e Company is not Jiable for cjose|scrutiny ofthe evjdence jed, tl|ie submissions made by the tard awarding Rs.5,000/- in y. the appeliant, exonerating li^bility holding claimant to be t/ision. for the applicant would |the persons were not sittlng and, therefore, the leamed i^ liabjljty upon the a^pltcant tpmpany from jts JJabilfty. + ^ ^s, :-HG—78 W»f^(l «l^liCft ~3^r ^i|^||d<LI, ^tli^^Ko, [®l<rt8<H^< c.,^,....^.,..!.^. ^^^ (^I^^) ^it^i^l^t^ -^m Kvr 3 fil^d I have heard the learned have carefully gone through the r^c in the written statement the driver of the vehicle, factum nolbasked anything in the suggesting the injured person a^ accident and, therefore, mere st| pleading jf disbeiieved by the committed any illegaijty in doing s^> It is trite law that no amou^ into without pleading. The Tribunai regarding the fact that th< said truck as gratuitous deserves to be upheld. No other; For the foregoing reasons, the revision filed by the applicant iiabie to be and is hereby dismiss^d find|ig passeng^r ^Nfd41vi'HTH^f ^ fe^ Tf^?R ^^ifm^Ti^r ;ounsel for the appljcant and ^cord. by the applicant along with |3f accident itsetf was denied; cr4ss-examination of applicant a pedestrian at the time of ^tement of the driver without Tribljnal then the Tribunal has not tit of evjdence can be looked recorded by the (earned claimant was traveling in the i^r is based on material and Iround has been raised. 1 do not find any substance in Therefore, the revision is at admission stage. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge V +