/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR SlnaSe Bench : Hon'ble Shri DiIi'D Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. AppeJiant Insurer Respondents Claimant IVI.A.(C.)No.413/2008 Nationa! Insurance Company LJmited, C/o Divisional Manager, Divisional Offlcer, nearby Lal Ganga Complex. in front of Jiia Sahakari Bank, G. E. Road.Raipur. Versys 1. Smt. Bindu Bai Alias Bindashwari Bai, aged about 40 years, W/o Shri Anjor Das Kosariya, R/o Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsi! & District Raipur (CG) 2. Vipul Kumar Kulshrestray, S/o Vinod Kumar Kuishrestray, aged about 42 years, Insured 3. Smt. Vinita Kulshrestray W/o Vinod Kumar Kuishrestray, aged about 62 years, both are resident of Qr.No.46/47, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur (CG) IVIisc.Appeai under Section 173 of Motor Vehlde Act Present : Shri Raj Awasthi, counse! for the appeilant. ORALO^DER (Passed on 08-04-2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appellant/insurer is aggrieved by the award dated 27.09.2006 passed in Claim Case No.106/2006 by the 12th Additional Moior Accidents CSaims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Rajpur (henceforth "the Tribunal") whereby liability to pay compensation was fastened on the appellanVinsurer on the ground that Jt has failed to prove breach of policy. (3) The soie ground urged by the iearned counsel for the appellanVinsurer is that driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any driving licence. L'!"\., ^7 (4) It is not in dispute that the offendlng vehicie bearing Registration No.C.G.-04-B/0397was insured by the appellant/insurer. (5) The owner and the driver of the vehicte filed written statement and contested the application before the Tribunal. No efforts were made by the appeIlanVinsurer for production of the licence from the respondent No,2 or 3. No evidencewas adduced in this regard. The appellant/insurer had thus faiied to prove breach of poiicy condition. (6) In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in fastening llabiJity on the insurance company to pay compensation. (7) ln the result, there is no merit in this appeai which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. (8) In view of above, I.A.No.2, an application for exemption from fiiing certified copy of order passed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act stands disposed of. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge