/m gWoéb, \ C IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ’ w.P.NoOQ[v—?LQ4 PETITIONER Smt. Harminder Kaur Garcha, W/o. Gurudeep Singh Garcha, aged about 50 years, R/o. Shankar Nagar Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 . Motor Accident Claim, Tribunal Kawardha. 2. United India Insurance Co. Branch Office No.1, Arnar Complex, LIC Road Raipur, Goura Yadav, S/o. Milan Yadav, aged about 27 years, Dirver, R/o. Pathupara Kawardha (C.G.). 4. Bisahin Bai, W/o. Bhagat Gond, aged about 50 years, R/o. Sakin Jamunia, District Kabir Dham (C.G.). 5. Aksaral Hague, S/o. Badral Hague, aged about 3O years; R/o. Sakin Sere Panjab Gali Ward No. 15, Tulsipur Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Durgesh Kurnar, S/o. Hiralal Korosia, aged about 28 years, Sakin Kilapara, Rajnandgaon. Shri $ 7. Ramsahay Uke, S/o. Late Suktal Singh Uke, aged about 51 years, R/o. Sakin Bandha Bazar, Ambagarh Chowki, Distt. Rajnandgaon. 8. Amrika Bai, W/o. Durgesh Kumar Karosia, aged about 24 years, Sakin Kilapara Rajnandgaon, Distt. Kabir Dham (C.G.). 9. Mun‘ni Bai, W/o. Ganesh Ram Gond, aged about 36 years, Sakin Mangaon, Distt. Kabir Dham (C.G.). 10. Bharat, S/o. Babujai, aged about 4O years, R/o. Sakin Village Sari, Tahsil Kawardha, Distt. Kabir Dham (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226L227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ) ‘ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH ; WRIT PETITION No 2131 OF 2004 Smt. Hn amidar Kr au Garca h Versus - - Motor Aiden ' Tn'bunal r. others cct C1a1ms 8 - Mr. at, Advocat: For the petitioner. . ’ (Pas on Augus 204) j sed mpg t 0 ‘ . V ‘ 1. ‘ pioner a referred is writ petitiOn under Article :2 27 of the nsuo of ndia r qashing the award- dd' .1.4 ”passed by he or Accidn Claims _ Tn'bu Kwar i Clai Cae N 30/200 to 34/2002, 103/0 &. 02/02 t the eent of exoera the respondent i rnce mpany and onsently ecg th Insurance ' Company t recover the ut of a from the petioner in reect of the common awar psse all the cl cases. 2. Be facts eadi to tiling of his petition are hat the petitiner erein i enaged in te por busines and she p f Bu No. MP23-y00’ fwhih Gora Yodav was ‘ _ the driver. On 8.3.20 at abou‘12. p.111. Go Yadav was dri h n RjanofK d W s bus reache near he fore post Vilge Sili, the said L us niet wit an accident, on w a criil case wasi. i‘ Insua Co cque dirtin e o amon w ti sp d ad ‘ aim rif lng t t o h s g h st s i he own o s t er ving te said bus o andganwardha roa. hen the aid d t st ofla hat b h hich mna rgistered under Ce No.22000for coin of th $ Preserit: : B'K kaw e ‘ ORDER L.c. BIIADoo, 1. i Thie etti hs p th 2‘6/ 2 Cotittin I fo u ate 300200 t ot et nai dha n m s os; 2 2 1 o xt ntlng s J-74 oc 100 t80 ra . I e \ rim 8/. mmssio e? ‘ ion‘ence under Sections 279 8n 337 of IPC. In the said accident, seven persons received various injuries, therefore, the said persons filed claim cases before :the M.A.C.T, Kawardha, inumbers ofwhich are ’mentioned above. .‘ILearned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants as , mentioned in the award. Since the amount awalded to each of p the claimants was below Rs.l0,000/-, therefore, the petitioner ‘was not entitled to file an appeai against the said award. ‘ Accordingly, the petitioner has prefeired this writ petition. . 'In this petition the main challengeias mentioned in Para 5 of . ‘ the petition is that Gorya Yadav, who was driving the vehicle > was having valid licence but that has not been considered by I : the learned Tribunal. It has erroneously considered that Gora f Yadav was not having valid licence at is why the respondent- breach Insurance of policy Company and allowed has been the eXjnerated C mpany to on recover the ground the aWard of ‘ amount from the petitioner. . I have learned counsel for the petitioner on admission. i. beamed counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned? i holding the valid licence, in fact, Gora Yadav was in possessionf of the Valid licence for driving the heavy duty vehicles i.e. the? bus. ‘ l X i . I have perused the impugned award In Paragraph 11 of- the award 1t has been specuically meiationed that on behalf of the Insurance Company one Mohd §Yusuf Ali Branch Manager conducted an enqmry. Onenq1m‘y, 1t was found that Gora Tribunal was not right in holding that Gora Yadav was not‘ 1 possess the valid licence to dlive the vehicle. )One clerk namely 1 Yadav was not holding Valid licence and to the same enect iMohd. Yusuf Ali gave evidence before the learned Tribunal and 4 said that since Gora Yadav was notiin possession of the valid rlicence, there was a breach of policy, as per the insurance pfpolicy therewas a condition that driver of the vehicle must i Siyaram Dhruv (witness No.3) of Regional Transport Authority OEce, Durg appeared before the Tribunal and gave evidence : after showing the register of licences maintained in the R.’I‘.A. i office to the effect that on the date :of accident Gora Yadav was , m possession of licence for driving Zlight motor vehicles and he - was not authorized to drive passeriger vehicle. arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any substance that, Gora Yadav x‘vas in possession of valid I licence of driving of passenger vehicle. A specinc plea was: raised on behalf of the respondent No.3 in claim cases that at the time of driving the said bus the driver Gora Yadav was not: in possession of the valid licence and same kind of evidence: adduced by respondent No.3 and adso by Siyaram Dhruv, Clerk: of R.T.O. ionice. No rebuttal evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2 saying that respondent No.1 was in} possession of the valid licence i0 drive'the passenger ibusq: Therefore, the ‘ Moreover, such a licence was not tendered into evidence. . As such 1 do not find any illegality and mfirmrty 1n the impugned award passed by the arned Tribunal holding that ' Gora Yadav was not in possession of the valid licence for dnvmg the passenger Vehicle there was a breach of policy and on account of that the msurance company 1s Within its right to “f ‘ V , (JW. ' \v. 3 X i g same is ' : the owner of the 5s smised. dis ality and. infirmity in the 11 is ‘Withoilt anv force in pensation amount fro petitioner. i n7; the result, I dO'not fmd any illeg impéugned order. This petitio bie to be dismissed and accordingly, it > xeccver the com i 3. ha z 3 9.1