^M 00=OZ2 'gi? feMli^S MpiE •y^s. aay. ^ sooe/so^Ai MI±SJ. JN^jAj-.ie a.vui ^ SOOS/9Z Mtti M^ itige. X112 UtiMfcMLl iBAifPj.e 1615 JJs.^S IS^it Ahffi ^fi ttM&J-tfa. afed sa&^t- A2yi ££t±ut3 t^teie Myrf •jj:*3 § 6Jl!i&Li±l&U<li.l& fi$l telimfi lAjjij. s^i. o^&oitS -£. ^S j.My.*Vy,ffi yuay. ^A MJlt" *MUi! S£ 6ir sy.&.iittj.tE^t&uieMa^tiSiy^ -?**'s Jjssy i-AiteSafe^ifeK ial4?lfiAffl£ UIAIUUJ. j.iiitsy. 'Suik^s. *&V3; ay. yids ^iiififcv. 'fiui^ *Mfi 05 fij.E 'fil-UMt teMl-iE fii-U3itt o^ j.n.y. 4^& apJi ••^., ^<-^ .^-<^-- /^^fe< ^^' 'teia £t Siffi ^f^)'J/<>° fijj. ASSIS Os^ ^te &u ifc^a? o^ yji -I l-Mte6 1A5J^J.)E tati-^Ja.UMI: fiJLlt5JLIdsJ-A J.Jiffiy. feltt&lkMA • » 'My.MS JtSl& 'fflis^ -1.&JJ6 /lAia 'Sgiyiy. 4^Jai& ifc^us WsiOy' •••• *£-Mte^ &&&lhS / sooe/ o' -ilOSk *A 'Jtft •its' i 'ASRti^*U2itete -tias A.Btma- &.^!iJt ^ ^ & E!8!;i!;;s!i«£» Vst^i';5^t^ ^ XI-HC-22 g^ ^|i<lc|i|, ®Tn<H'i6,(sirtwy ^,^.Eft.A.b'y/S~ (d^ ••••"• a.n^rqiT R-ti* 3n^?r Sh*li<ti;trf^(T 3iW1> SIT^I ^dlWTri^cT +i«f<'i4)-<tiiti<-<Tfffei<rl I^WA{ ^isri^TSfI^T Shri Shrikumar A^rawal, Sr. Advocate wifh Shri Anaad Gupta.Advocate for the a]|>pellant. Heard on admissionl and M.C.P.No.773/2005. Respondent No.l Respondent No.2 driviag negligent maiuier dashed mjuries. The said Truck iasured with aupeUant under Sectioa 166 of the account of various AppeUant/ Insuiance at the time of accMent drivmg the vehicle had vehicle beiug driven Insuraace, doe's not liable to pay th e compenss riiet with an accident on 10/12/2002. |Tmck No.CG-08 B/0244 by rash aad |respondent No. 1 who sustained various tvas owhed bv respondent No.3 and was Resnondent No.l filed aa application Motor Vehicle Act for compensation on received by her ia the accident Couijpany denied fhe claim and pleaded that re|spondent No.2 - Kesar Siagh, who was vaUd driviag licence, fherefore, fhe in contraventioa of fhe condition of the appeUant/Insurance Conipaay, iltion. nnuties ItO enjo|ui Leamed ' T'ribunal cojisidered fhe objection at length and also evaluated fhe evidence adduced by the appeUaat to sypport its contentiou .'eini.l held that fhe appeUaat/Insurance Conipany failed to prov^-'th.'at at fhe relevalit time. respondent No.2 - driver had no (^^f^) XI-HC-22 3^'^iraRpi', ©Tdwis,ISidiuy 3ii^t 4s«t> *11*IMI S»>*IIW V^ 200 •W^TS^ITWnfBtT an^r^T ^TRi 311^1 awNiHfig- +i<<t<-i<fl^ KiK<-fTfffe><a ^wi. ^srf^iTan^r driving Kcence. Aft^r due [appreciation of evidence, an award of Rs.48,220/- vide impugue^l oider dated 17/03/2005 had been passed by fhe Clauns Tri^unal against flie appeUant/ Insuraace Coiapaayand respondents|No.2 and 3. AppeUant/Insup-ance Coinpany has cliaUenged the findiug ofTribunal, who h^ld fhat appellant failed to prove fhat at the relevant tune respon4ent No.2-Driver had no valid driving licence. A copy of aw4rd dated 17/03/2005 passed iu Case No. 26/2003 has been anjaexed td fhe nieino of appeal. Froin perusal of the award, it is apparent fiiat fhe Tribunal ni para 9 of fhe award discussed the rellevaat evidence. It is evident ft^at fhe disputed licence was renewed by R.T.0., Rajnaadgaon ar[d issued from. Gaaganagar. No iiivestigation has been tal^ aad no repoit froni fhes^ ;n place at Gangaiiagar or Rajnandgaon places has been obtained fo estabUsh that the disputed Ucence }s false or fabricated. Therefore, leamed Tribunal rightty held fhat| appeUant faUed to establish ftiat at fhe relevant tiine, respondent|Mo.2-Dnver had no valid driving licence. (tft^y^) XI-HC-22 *I|*ICTI sn*iicn 3^ •<{1<11<'1<<, CTTn^'16, Rlcllti^i 3il^l <4s|ct> g^^...A.=.^.3/^5 ^ 200 f^<>4 sn^r^r feNisn^i sbt^icbtfRd aii^iswiigiHf^cf +i«t<-f^tiiiaffffe'<n <fatdi< ^sri^irsn^T Raju ./..'> X? '7M The appeal is lijible to be dismissed aad is accordmgly disiaissed. In fhe light o and 1397/2005 stand disp the above order, M.C.P.No.773/2005_ sedof. sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge / ± ('(t^y^)