mum (W) Shn‘ Ali Asgar, Aclvoca‘e Ior the appellant ‘ Heard. bLM4 J V ) e§ lne appellant-Insulan-ce companv mas meted this appeal under Sectlon 1/5 of Motor Vemcles Act, 1988 agamst the award dated 14-1-2UU4 passed bf the lat Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Burg in Ciaim Case No. l21/‘200i whereby the 1earned Tribunal has awardfd a sum of Rs. 19,000j— in favour of the claimant Ashwani Kumai” Sahu towards the injuries sustained .by him in the motor accident dated 25:2001 causeé by Tam—407 urv: I WWW WWWiwm ,ammm Misc APPELLANT Company, Bhilai, Divisional Manager, r‘ ‘7 \":"’) iris-as / RLSPGND NT‘ 1. As‘ wani Kumar Sahu, of "In; at son of Late Small}, agsd abeut 37 yeaIQ r dent mt yeaIQ viiiage Parsahi post Fekari P " — Utayee Tal' Pnnfgn Dlgff hnro [(‘ ‘A RESFGKEEW’F 2. Khtnnai bahu, son 01 bhn Johan Defendant No. 1 Johan Lai Sahu aged about 24 years Resident I ol vm‘ge Parsaln P S “tavee Tah Paam Distt Durg (p u } QdgpngggEN'r Dexenaan: No. "‘ mp Ahdnl baan aged about 4i vears K/ o. Ut‘t‘ar Wzu‘d, k’ar‘hF-Prl (‘how Dhamjrau, Distt; uudmtan (C u ; ¥ -RES?0E€DEE’_‘ 4. Devcharan son ol Shn Mahtaxlai uwuel Defggdant Kg: 4 banu agggi ahg‘nt 4’) vgsnw Pie ‘rLlnaF- Parr:“_h1 P :3 Ufayee lah Paatan 36-4-2007 Dulg, Lust: Dun) (CG i XI-HC——78 WW, WW, W WO E1.%.!.[.é...% an 200 Wm mm (W) WWW mafsam WM ‘1€‘Q}WR $WW€¥I vehicie ownEd by respond( Khemlal kamed counSsi f0 evidsnce available on reco ‘ was gl‘a'tultous passanger goods venicla However, th the Txibunai on the grouni by the insurance Compam mpugned award and pleading of the respective parties available on record, it ie observed that the Insurance Company did not take the plea in its written statement that the claimant was traveling in the vehicle as gratuitous ~passenger. ‘l‘ne onus of From penlsai of i ' in this regard. :nt No. 3 and driven bv respondent No. 2 r the appellant submits that from the rd, it would be evident that the Claimant in the vehicle as he xvaS traveling in the e above fact has not been considered bv l that there is no speciiic pleading taken breach of policy condition lies in the Insurance Company, however, the insurance Company has not pleaded in its written state [nent that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger and the only o the vehicle was being driv and effective driving lice insurer has failed to prov breach of policv conditi appellant has been sadd award as insurer of the ve / The appeal being dev id of merit is dismissed. / jection raised by the insurer was that n by the driver who did not have valid ce at the time of accident. Since the by specific pleading about the alleged the impugned award by which the d with the liability of satisfving the 1c1e cannot be faulted. W’ o ,