^-^-—-^^-^ .M,,_.___._„ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISH(3ARHLAT BILASPUR M.A.(C) N0.- ^Q> D ^ APPELLANT ^ ]o^ ftTP^^^ >-/^- RESPONDENTS ^, firrw^^ /<3~/?-^^ ^RANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. , BILASPUR(C.G.) Vrs. :-f^ HANSLAL S/0 FAGANU RAM AGE 54 ^ YRS., CASTE - RATHOR, RESIDENT OF PURANI BASTI PENDRA, TAHSIL - PENDRAROAD,DISTT.- BILASPUR C.G. ,/ r^ a^f^^^^) /°' ^''^ L ^ PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH S/0 p?^ ^ ^ SHYAMNARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT T"l>-'^ OF INFRONT OF TAHSIL OFFICE PENDRAROAD, PENDRAROAD, DISTRICT.- BILASPUR C.G.P'^ 1/< ^%^^ ^^ DIPAK KUMAR SINGH S/0 S.S. SINGH, S^^ RESIDENT OF NEAR TO BLOCK ^ /"/A/'"7 OFFICE PENDRA, TAH. PENDRAROAD, DISTRICT - BILASPUR C.G./° ^^ v^r^^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT / /?7 ^ OF AT IVIR. G. J. M.A.fc) OF 2008 Vs IVianager, The Orientai insurance Co. Ltd. Biiaspur (CG) Han-slai and others Present: Mr. Sudhir Agrawai, counsel forthe Vr, Jaishankar Pandey, counsei for respondents. G. (2"a August,2011;l ^ l. Thls has fjle'd by the 173 of the Act, 1988 the 21.8.2007 by the iViotor Accident CI-aims (FTC), (in "the TribunaJ") in Clalm No. 20/06, to pay the compensation on the company jointiy and severally with driver and owner. 2, Brief of the case are that on 27.2.2005 at about 3.00 pm going Bu-s Pendra in connection with his work. At that time, No.2 there with o?"ie on motorcycle Vlctor No. CG 10 E (hereinafter to as "the offending vehicle"), which is by No.3 and insured v^ith the cornpany, and by drivjng the sald vehicle rashiy and Hanstai, as a result, hls hip bone got During an Iron rod had to be inserted, on of which the injured began to fee! djfflculty in moving, and attending the cali of nature. The jnjured has Report ofthe accia'ent was in the Pojjce Station. 3. With the averments, a ciaim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") was fiied the Tribunal for a total of Rs.10,30,000/-. ^^y^^^ /^&s'^ I ^-"f^. 1 VK!B'P-"--% S' '^^ ^€/ 4. However, Tribunal of the ied by the it, a total Rs.1,68,400/" the the jointiy and with the driver and the of the 5. for the company has that on the of the offendlng vehicle vvas by Kumar, who was of owner of the and at that time, the driver i.e. was not a 6. for the has the jmpugned so far as of upon the is and that the has to its that at the of the Kumar not a iic-ence. 7. of the LCR and the jt is any doubt that o?i of 279 and 337 of thelPC was Kum-ar, who is of Kumar, of the So far as of drivlng by Kurnar on the of is the has, from the in that the was drlving a Thjs fact is by of (NAW-1), Who had in par-a-7 of his that It is true that on 27.2.2005 I.e. the of he vvas not a to the 8. Owner of the Kumar, vvho as NAW-2, has aiso in of his that It is true that hss brother Kumar was not having -a driving on 27.2.2005 l.e. the of to drive the motorcycie. 9. After this, no other is required to prove the fact that driver Kumar on the of accident l.e. 27.2.2005 was not a drivjng itoence because admissipn is the of ^ a person. A-s such, it is proved beyond doubt that on the of accident, driver Kumar was not having a driving and hence, has of of Insurance poljcy. Though injured/dajmant was the 3rd party, but when the driver not havlng a in that the company be with the iiablijty to indemnify the owner/injured and in such the Tribunal not the company to pay the of cornpensatlon anu then the from the owner. 10. En the the js aiio'wed. so far as it to of upon the appelIanVinsurance and the company to pay and it frorn tSie ovvner of the vehicle, is set Owner of ttie be Eiable to pay the of to the No.1. If any has by thea has not to the then tha be to the !n the has the be frorn the of the by the appeilant/insurance company. No as to i \ Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge