t.jiinaeta, ,y df'-ii yfM nn' 'BT ftp f*'-!UATTI?S?"!AR!-i AT a" A-SP! !B r~itsviS's~i ^'"iii^ur^; ^uitF' i»i'na"ij' , i s 3-i;l'^.3iHi'i^.r^ "£ i Q.i.n/-;i'iBsr";i«/F'^. s!e Shri Justsce R. L. dhanw, M.A. F'io. 823 of 20Q4 AMT »Ai^! i^a^onsE EHs.ura.ncs ^orTipsny L[m;^Bc ^^ ^^tJ^^ A S ^^ ^n 1BI i*?fl iSPONDENT Versus c:imt. Kaliya Bai and others. r>»n p Fcr Pronouncement ofOrdei }) n.d •'JH^ ^ - ^-^ ~" < ^,\-; i i Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge 1 ! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'bie Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, iViisc. AppeaE No. 823 of 2( APPELLANT : National Insurance Company Limited, {NON-APPLICANT N0.3) Branch Office: Kamth' Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RESPOiSSDENTS (APPLiCANTSl Versus 1. Smt. Kaiiya Bai, W/o Mehttar Yadav, aged 45 years. 2. Hemial, S/o Mehttar Yadav, aged 26 years. 3. Khemlai, S/o Eyiehttar Yadav, aged 24 years, 4. Ramshila, S/o Mehttar Yadav, aged 28 years. A!l residents of vi'iiage BundeH, Tahsi Chhuikhadan, Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.GJ 5. Vinod Kumar s/o Dhansingh Verma, aged 27 years, resident of Baldev Bagh, Rajnandgaon. 6. Dhansingh, s/o Ranjeet Singh, aged 45 years, resident of Baidev Bagh, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) APPEAL UNDERSECTiON 173 OF THE MOTOR VEH'CLES ACT, 1888 NON-APPLICANTS N0.1 &2 Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, Senior advocate witn Shri Sanjay Gupta for the appeliant. Shri Rakesh Pandey for respondents No. 5 & 6. None for respondents No.1 to 4. (Passedonfi_.04.2011) This is an appeai by the insurance company directing against the order dated 6.4.2004 passed by the Additional Moior Accidents Claims Tribunai, Khairagarh in claim case No.17/2003 v/hereby the iearned Tribuna' has awarded a sum of Rs.1,51,500/- as compensation to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 for the death of Mehttar Ram in the motor accident took piace on 30.03.2003. . 2. Brief facts of the case, as per pleadings of the ciaimants, are that on fateful day of 30.02.2003 when the deceased was coming from village •"a*-ll>**""i*"<i"**ni>'W«i«.a.iilina ,tt" 1.1 "re j %^J,J -.^•'' ""s^s&^" i Bundeli to vt!lage Gandai on his bicycle, respondent No.5, who was driving offending vehicie bearing registration No. C.G. 08 ZA 2014 in a rash and negiigent manner, hit the deceased, due to which, the deceased died instantaneously. 3. On a c'aim petition filed under section 166 of the iVotor Vehicles Act for the death of Mehttar Ram, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,51,500/- as compensatiqn to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4. The Tribunal, on ciose scrutiny of the evidence led before it heid that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicie, the offendir^ vehicle hitthe deceased and he diad instantaneously. As againstthis, no appeai has been ffled by the ownsr or the insurer, and therefore, these findings recorded by the Tribunal have now atSsined finaiity. 4. Learned counsei appearing for the sppellant argued t'nat ths insurance policy of the offendsng vehicie was canceiled because ths chsque which was given by the owner wss dishonored by the concerned Bank, and therefore, since there is no poiicy for offending vehicle, the insurer is not iiabie to pay compensation to the cl.aimants. . 5. On the other hand, !earned counse! appeanng for respondents No. 5 & 6 supported the impugned order. in the present case, after perusa! of evidence, it is ciear that accidenttook place on 30.03.2003 in which the deceased had !ost his iife and at the tlme of accident, his sge was 50 years. It is aiso not disputed that respondent No.5 was driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and respondent No.6 is the owner of the vehicie. According to the iearned for the appeilant, cheque whlch was issued by the owner of offending vehic'e was dishonored by the Bank concerned and as a resuit of such, the po!icy of insurance was also cancelled. However, there is no policy of insurance on record, there is also no document to show that insurance po!icy was canceiied due to dishonor of cheque, no witness has entered in witness box on behalf of the insurance company to adduce evidence that cheque was dishonored and due to that policy of insurance was cancelled. In fact, nothing has been produced about any information given to owner of the offending vehicie that policy has been canceiled due to dishonor of cheque. in this view ofthe matter, it is c!ear that the insurer -^ hA -ri.fl.-iiua* -^Sf^-^ff.aist- has not been abie to prove that policy was cancei!ed due to dishonor of cheque. Aithough in v/ritten statement of the insurer it has been mentioned that the ov»'ner has issued cheque, but as on the date on whsch cheque v.'as issued cover note would have certainiy been issued and as soon as cheque was presented to the concerned Bank, it was dishonoured and that information was not given to the owner of the offending vehicle about the canceliation. Taking into consideration fhe facts and circumstances of the case, the 'earned.Tribunal has rightiy held insurance company to pay compensation as awarded by it. 7. For the foregoing reason, 1 do not find any scope to interfere ir; the impugned order as the learned counsel appearing for the insurer has not been able to point any manifest error in the impugnsd order. 8. In the result, the appeal being dsvoid of merit and substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. __fL- --—" p L.JhanW Judge