1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDRICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR mvEsmn _ Bem§ APPEIQLANT M.A. No. 7"“! é [2006 “The Oriental Insurance C0. Ltd. X Through Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Biaspur (C.G.) VERSUS .951. ,Mhd. Bashir Khan S/o Shiekh / Suleman, aged abOut 43 years. Smt. Shmshun Nisha W/o Mhd. Bashir Khan, aged ‘ about 41 years. Khairun Nisha aged about 17 years. ‘ Jahrun Nisha, aged about 15 years. ' ,RESPONDENTS Mehrun Nisha, aged about 13 years. Respondent No. 3 to 5 of daughter of Mhd. Bashir Khan; and minor through guardian father Mhd. Bashir Khan S/o Sheikh Suleman, All resident of Village — Dendori, ‘ post Dendori, P.S. — Chilpy, Teh. l — Lormy, Distt. — Bilaspur (C.G.) Virendra Kumar S/o Hariram Sahu, aged about 21 years, driver of tractor No. C.G. 10 A / 3215. g} Hari Ram Sahu S/o Phaguram Sahu, aged about 46 years, owner of tractor No. C.G. 10 A / 3215. Boath of resident — Village Dendori, Police Chowkey—chilpy, Teh. —‘ Mungeli, Distt. — Bilaspur (C.G.) APPEAL VALUED AT gidooob R/ Misc APPEAL UNDER SECT10N¥173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE AOL/“W eing a r'exzedéM w ' Vv, , R HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice LM. Quddusi and Hon’ble S hri Justice'Pras‘hant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous AQQeal No.746 of 2006 ThevOriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant verSUS Mhd.‘Bashir Khan and others ‘ Resgondents Present: Shri A.K.Athaley, counsel for the appellant. Shri A.H.Syed, counsel for respondents No.1 to 5. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section r1 73 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 6th January, 201 1) Per l.M. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award dated 21-3-2006 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli in Claim Case No.75/2005 only in respect of the direction contained in the award to the insurance company to pay the compensation and recover it from the driver and the Owner of the tractor. 3. Shri A.H.Syed, learned counsel for respondents No.1' to 5/claimants has stated that the claimants have already received the amount of compensation from the driver and the owner of the tractor ‘ and, therefore, there is no question of payment of amount of compensation by the insurance company now and recover the same 2 from the driver and the owner of the tractor. The main liability has been imposed upon the driver and the owner of the tractor to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants, which has already been paid by them. 4. In View of the above, the misceiianeous appeal has become infructuous. The same is dismissed as infructuous. 5. A cross-objection has been flied on behalf of the driver and the owner of the tractor. The cross—objection for setting aside the award is not maintainable ams the prayer for setting aside the award is rather a support to the instant appeal and not an opposition to it. The cross-objection on behalf of the driver and the owner of the. tractor is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable, however, this order will not debar the driver and the owner of the tractor to prefer a ‘ separate appeal; k Sdl- l.M.Quddusi Judge Sdl- Prashant kumar Mishl‘a i Judge