m ‘ mmm-9:.H9;é.8.9/§;érzoo a“ ’ mamaeswm mmmw \ akmm Shri Majay Kumar Bhaq uri, Advocate. for the appeilaxxt. None appears for the reé.pondents. Heard. 7 This appeai is directed against the order datfed 27-4-2004 passed in Claim Case No. 10512003 by learned 4th Motor Accident Claims Tn'bunal, Bilaspur whereby interim compensation has been awarded to the ciaimants. 7 Leanied counsel for the appeliant submits that the driver who was involved in this ease was prosecuted, ghowever the W M.A. No. 680(2004 AFPELLAET: Rajesh Paudey son of RP. PandeyLaged about 40 years, Ex—Mayer, Bilaspur R/o. Gondpara, Tahsii and District Biiaspur (GL1) Ownar ofTruck No: MP 20G,I5825 VRES?6IV'DEI\iT: Versus 1. Smt. Ram Bai Gond Wli'dow of Late Manharan Gond, aged about 23 years by caste- Gond. ‘ : ‘ 2. Ganga Bai Gond, D/o. Manhamn Manhamn Gond, aged about 4 months, rcsr‘ondent No. representing through— her mother mother Smt. Rambai being natmal guardian Both Rio. village Parsahi RS. Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, Distt. Bilasphr (C.G.) ‘ EEF‘6RE: mm HON’ELE SHRI DHIRENDRA MigHRA J 10-4-2007 XI—HC-22 mm . M f4 N?..§.8..0/Q’DOL? 11a 200 u... on“... , mmmw WW%WW %a1%wan%m ed him of the charges and negligence Ether submits that involvement of the not been established, therefore, the :n awarding the inten'm compensation ‘ L £ 1 Criminai Court has acquitt’ I l \ \ 1 Motor Vehicles Act, hahility is fastened urance Company of the vehicle and available. Having considered the facts the unpugned order The appeal being devo {a of merit fails and is dismissed. has not been proved. He ft vehicle in question has Tribunal was not justifled against the insurer. Under Section 1400f . won owner, driver and Ins defence of no fault is not : and Circumstances of the case 1n the opinion of this Court there 1s no illegality or infirmity in