INTHE HIGH COURT OF JTJDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH <3. OF 201%', MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - f 5 5 | OF 20d^, (MEMORANDUM OF AFPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE^ACT, 1988) APPELLANT NON/ArPPLICANT No.-2 NtiiN-CLAIMANT .Rajaram Dhruv S/o Mehattar Singh Dhruv, aged about 40 years, R/o - Village - Kachardih, Tehsil- Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) [Owner of vehicle Tata 709 bearing registration No. C.G. 06/B-2192] RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS ,X?PLICANTS ^ .^y^ fW/ ^'•' f^ C5;"'»/iy ^7 ^a'' '^"'-tW ."?• n>?' .^- ,.'$; <^/ VERSUS L^ Jagar Singh S/o Budhra Singh, Caste - Kumhar, aged about 35 years, R/o - Village Raitum, Chowki — Patewa, Tehsil & District - Mahasamund (C.G.) [Claimant/Appiicant] Dhanesh Kumar Nishad S/o Sunhar Nishad, aged about 40 years, R/o - Village — Bawankera, Post - Jhalap, Tehsil Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) [Occupation - Priver ofvehicle Tata 709 bearing registration No.C.G.06/B-2192] 3^/ The New India Insurance Company Limited, Main Branch Office, Madina Building, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) [Insurer ofvehicie Tata 709 bearing registratioh No. C.G. 06/B-2192] w^-"' Appeal Value at - Rs. 11,000/- te^;= MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 \1- S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Rajaram Dhi'uv Versus Jagar Singh and Appearance: Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondentNo.3. MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEmCLES ACT.1988 ORAL ORDER (27.06.2011) Heard on application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. (2) On due consideration, the delay in filmg the appeal is condoned. (3) Heard onadmission. (4) The appellant is the owner of Tata 709 Vehicle bearini registration No.C.G. 06./B-2192. (5) The Tribunal has allowed compensation of Rs. 11,000/- in favour of injured claimant. However, the Insurance Company has been absolved from its liability to pay compensation on the ground that at the relevant time the vehicle was driveii in breach of tenns of policy. (6) Admittedly, the vehicle is a commercial vehicle which vvas iasured as goods vehicle by the Insuraiice Company as found by the learned Tribunal in p^ra 1 1 and 12 ofthe award. ^''S^*^' f^""^ ''%: .^. .. '^\ &»nfS!e^ g 1 ^ -^y 2' (7) It has been stated by N.A.W.-l Vipul Chandra Sutar, vvho is the Senior Assistant of the Insurance Company, that no premium for covering the risk ofany passenger traveling in the vehicle was either paid or received by the Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal, by placing reliaiice on thejudgment rendered by tfae Supreme Court in the matter ofThe New India Insui'ance Compan^' Ltd. Vs. Vedvati and others, AIR 2007 SC 1334 has fbund that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. (8) This court has perused the record and the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is not found to be illegal or perverse. (9) No case for interference with the impugned a-ward is made out. (10) Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge -*y