fr^ COURT OFCHHATTISGARHATBJLASPUR Sinaie Bench : Hon'bie Shri DJIJD Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. AppeSJant Non'appljcant No.3 Respondents I.A.CC.i No.448/2008 Branch yanager, United Indla Insurance Company Limited, Office at Ram IVIandir, Near Bramha Road, Ambikapur, Dlstrict Surguja (C.G.) Versus Dr.Chintamani Ojha, son of Jairam Ojha, aged about 48 years, resident of Tiwari Buildlng Road, Kedarpur, Thana and Tahsii Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (CLAIIVIANT) Bajrang Agrawai, son of Ramvilas Agrav/al, aged 35 years, Occupation Owner of indica Car, resident of Manipur, Ambikapur, Thana and Tahsi! Ambikapur,' District Surguja (C.G.) Heerachand Sao, son of Late Laxmi Prasad Sahu, 35 years, Occupation Driver, resident of Darripara, Thana 'and TahsiJ Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (Non-appllcant No.1 & 2] Aopeai under Section 173 of the Motor Vehlcles Act. Present :" Shri H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for the appeliant. ORAL (Passed on 4th of April, 2008) Heard on i.A.No.2, whlch is an appjication for taking document (J.e., certified copy of order passed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. and recejpt of statutory deposlt) on record.' (2) IA.No.2 is aiiowed^ Documents are taken on record, (3) The appeilant is aggrieved by an award 07-01-2008 by the llnd Additionai Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunai, Ambikapur, Dlstrict •^^ •^- c^ Surguja in SVSotor Accident Claim Case No.21/2007 (henceforth "the Tribunal") whereby in an jnjury case, compensation of Rs.1,54.197/- v^as awarded. (4) The onty polnt urged by learned Senior Actvocate for the appeJ!anVlnsurer that the driver of the offending vehicie Indlca Car bearing Registration No.C.G.15-B-2131 did not possess valid drivlng iicence at the time of the accident. No other point v^as urged. (5) Hov^ever, a perusal of para-12 of the award shows that before the Tribunal, a report dated 08-09-2007 of the Jnvestigator-Diiip Singh appointed by the appeiiant/insurer was enclosed aiong with the pollcy of insurance which revealed that the driver of the offending vehjcie possessed a valid driving Ilcence. In this vlew of the matter, the contention of the iearned Senior Advocate cannot be accepted. Slnce the appellanVinsurer has not been abie to prove any breach of policy by the insurer, llabjljty to pay compensation was rightiy fastened upon It by the Tribunai. (6) !n this view of the matter, there Is no merit in this appeal whlch Is accordingiy dlsmissed at the stage of admisslon. i.A.No.1, a.n appiication for stay also stands dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Tumane