BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHASTTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.A.(C) No. /3^b /2009 ft'-y y PELLANT ^.^^ Ltk^ ^••y^ •"^.\l^Ff~ ^ ' Bab-am Shanna S/o Bansiram Sharma Age about 50 yrs, R/o Hatkachora vivebaand Ward Jagadalpur District Bistar (C.G.) \-^' Vehicle Owner VERSUS RESPONDENTS .1. Subas S/o Late Chinni Age about 42 yrs 2,Smt. Radha W/o Subas Age about 48 yrs Both R/o Beda Umargoan Post - Beda Umargoan Tehsil Jagdalpur DistrictBastar (C.G.) .3. Tularam kashyap S/oLate Pillu Ram Kashyap Age about 24 yrs R/o Hatkothora ,viv^eknand ward Behmd kali mandur, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) /4;The New India Insurance ^ Company Ltd. Near Jhankar Tallcies, Jagdalpur District .Bastar(C.G.) \^^' APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 r': COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT SSLASPUI ; h ssrm • U *«?^(SiE i i i' Subas and Others. ,Y/ APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 11 (Dn/ision Bencft: Hon'bte Shri N.K. Aaanwai. & Hon'foie Shri 'i.t-. Jl Preseni : Shri Devendra Pratap Singh. counsef for tha appeilant. This 's owner's appeaj against the award dated 13-07-2009 ?ass®d by Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunat, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunai') in Clajm Case No.279/2007 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.3,56,000/- has been awarded along with intersst @ 7.5% per annum from the date of applscation tilf its payment, in favour of the ciaimants and as against the appellant/owner for the death of Mansai @ Ludu in the motor accident exonerating the insurance Company from liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 2. The facts briefiy stated are as under: On 12-07-2007, Mansai @ Ludu (since deceased) aged about 20 years while going from Vitlage Umargaon to Potanar, met with an sccident with truck bearing regisfration No. C.G. 17 H/12S3 and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said accldent. 3. -The Ctaimants unfori preferrec! ciaim petition under parents of the deceased have i .166 of the Motor.Vehicles Act (for "B* ^ Tirj^T1- ^^^^^ ,f 6C t" t^ i 6' %Bi»^ 8 § 1 &. & '^ ^ '2. fv short 'the Act') clasming Rs.23,10,000/- as compensation for tle death of the deceased in the said accident. The Insurance Company by filing its written statement denied its liability on the sround that the offendin.e vehicie fTruck) was not covered wsth the permrt at the time of accident. 4. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the. evidence led, materia! placed and submissions made by the parties, awarded a sum of Rs.3,56,000/- as compsnsation in favour of the ciaimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till ths dat®of actual payment, against the appeilant, exonerating the Insurance Company from its iiability to pay compensation on the ground that the said vehicle was being plled at the time of accident in breach of poiicy conditions inasmuch as it was being plied without there being any permit. 5. By filing a copy of deposit challan along with application under Order 41 Ruie 27 C.P.C., learned counsel for the appeiiant wouid submit Shat the appellant has applied for permit on 11-06-2007 whsreas the accident occurred on 12-07-2007 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said vehlcfe was not covered with the permit, at the relevant We have heard learned counse! for the parties and perused the of the Tribuna!. 7. A bare perusal of the written statement fHed by the appeilant before the Tribunal would reveai that nothing has been said in their repi'y with regard to deposit of amount for issuance of aileged psrmit. Neither the fact with regard to deposit of money for grant of permit has been disctosed before the Tribuna!, nor any evidence was-adduced by the appe!lant, nor any permit has been filed which may have been subsequentiy granted to She appeltant in pursuance of the alleged deposit challan. Therefore, the said copy of deposit chalfan filed alon^ with the application under Order 41 Ruie 27 of C.P.C. cannot be believed so as to infer existence of permit or deposit of amount for grant of permit before the date of accident. "Undlsputedly, the vehtele was goods vehicle not covered by the permit pn the date of accident and this plea is available to ttie Insurance Company under Section 149(2)(i){c) ofthe Act, and the same has been C" F i •J^JS-^r ,i-8 Kvr estabii'shed by the fnsurance Company. Therefore, in the considsrsd opinion of this Court, the Tribunai has not committed any error in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liabiiity to pay compensation to the claimants. 9. in view of the above, we do not find any substance in the submissions made by tearnsd counsei for the appelSant. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appeliant being devoid of merits, is liabie to be and is hereby dismissed. Consequentiy, I.A. No.02, appiication under i!e 27 of C.P.C. also stands dismissed. 10. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhaiiwar Judge f-t £=x:—~- Wf S^^ iK f