::^iiSS!&K MIW IN THE HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR [CHHATTISGARH1 irrtt/i?'inil:^.!l No./^7oF200^ /"''^-5'.;;r'>^ Misc.Appeal No« APPELLANT JNSURANCE / / Branch Manager, Oriental Insu. Company Ltd., Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja [CG) V E RSUS RESPONDENTS /CLAIMANTS ^ ...%•?<" ^^^ffl^ ^l.Mandleshwar s/o Ramrati, ^t Gond bycaste, aged 55 years. •^•'''>A^' ..'-^\y ^' ^ ^^~~z ,2.Smt. Sumitraw/o Mandleshwar, 50 years. \ (Both r/o Village-Pasori, P.S. Kelhari, Tehsil-Manendragarh, District Korea (CG) >.Mohanlal Sahu s/o Ramdhani Sahu, r/o Near Daldal Crossing, Gram-Bijuri, District-Shahdol (M.P.) APPBAL U/S173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE AWARD/ORDER DATED-^2-9-2004 PASSED BY THE ADDITl0^AL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. MANENDRAGARH IN C.T. N0. S^/2003 ^ 'o \'. <., '•b APPELLANT HiQH COURT QF CKHATTtSQARH AT BSLASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justlce Prashant Kumar Mishra M.A. No.139^209S Branch Manager Varsus RESPONDENTS MandS^twtfar and others. Shri Abhlshek Sinha, counsei for the appeliant. None for the respondents. APPEALUNDERSECTIGN I^OFMOTOR VEKSCLEACT ORALORDER (21.C^.2010) The Ctalrns Tribunal has ailowed compensation of Rs.2,02,(NXV- sn favour of clalmants. The ap^tSant insurance Company has,been heSd liabte to indemntty the awarti. (2) Thls apj^al by the insurer has been preferred on the ground that the claimante being the parente of deceased Raju, appli^tion of muitiptler of 16 woyld be contrary to taw. He w^uld atso submit that ttie jeep ^%s driven as texs contrary to and in breach of terms of the pojicy as the jeep was ensured for private purpose. (3) In the matter of /nsurance CQ. Ltdl. vs. and snother reported In (2WS) 2 SCX; 641 the Hon'bte Supreme Court has held that the Insurance Company is not entttied to chaltenge the qyantum of compensatlon sn a case where the claims tribunai has not granted pemii^iGn ynder Section 170 <^ the Motw VehicSe Act to raise such defenc^ which are avaiiable to the owner and drivsr. (4) Sn the present case the appeSSant has not mov^i a separate appticatlon under Section 170 ofttie Motor Vehlcle Act and mstead n^ade a prayer In para 11 of the written stetement that in case tiie defendant No, 1 Ss ex or coStudes wlth the clalmante, the tnsurance be permitted to raise aSS the defenees over and above the defences avaitable -^L^ under Section 149 of tt^e Act. Netther ttie Tribunal took up the prayer for dlsposal nor the ever the In course of triaS and thus no permlssion under Sectlon 170 was granted to the appeSSant. The appeSiant is thus not entltied to challenge the quantym of compensation ajlowed by the CSalms Tribunat. (5) The argument re^arding drivsng of the j^p in breach of pollcy has been negath/ed by the dalrns trlbunal on a tlnding tfiat ti^e witnesses ©xarnineuby ttie claimants have stated that onSy slx persons wet'e traveling in the jeep anci the of the owner. The Tribunal have referreu to statement of owner of the jeep Mohan La$ Sahu as aiso the ciairnant Mandl^hwar ar?d have conciuded that both the witnesses have clQniQ<i the suggestion made by tiie Insurance Company that ttie jeep was hired for Rs.1,4(X}^. The statement of tt-ie witne^es examined by ttie insurance Company have been dssbeljeveci on the ground that ttie said witnesses are the empSoy^ of the Snsurance Company and the persons with whom they have interacted during suwey have not before the dalms Tribunal. (6) in the opinion of this C-ourt the reasoning assigned by ttie ciaims Tribunai for disbelievlng the statement of the witnosses of ttie Snsurance Company ss not pen/es^e. The daimante as welt as ths owner have categoricaiiy ttiat the pereons on board the jeep "^re the friends of the jeep owner and the jeep was not hlred. The manner of appreclatlon by the ctaims TnbunaS does not suffer from any illegailty w pewet'sity. The findlng that the jesp ptted for a prlvate use and was not used for h'sre does not suffer fromany snfirmity. (7) There is no In this which fe dtsmlssed. ______————— Sd//- i prashantKumarMishra Judge