a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILA$PUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 292 DF 2008 3 PETITlONERl New India Insurance Company Ltd., N.A.No.3 through the Branch Manager, 2 Floor, Raipur Development Authority Bhawan, Bajrang Market. GE Road. Raipur. through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Bilaspur (CG). \ Versus ENTS 1. Smt. Laxmi Bai, wife OIParasram, caste - Rawat, aged about 35 years, occupation Labour, resident of village Baargaon, PS & Tah. Berla, Distt, Durg (CG). Applicant 2, Punau Ram, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Anjore Das Dhruw, occupation — Vehicle Driver, Rio vill. Rawa, P.S. Arjuni, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). N.A.No.1 3. Parmanand Verma, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Khoob" Ram Verma, occupation — vehicle owner, caste Kurmi, Rio vill. Girendra, PS. ' Tah. and Disu. Raipur (CG). N.A.No.2 (Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) singie Bench: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present : Shri Ali Asgar, counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 18m day of August, 2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Insurance Company submits that the impugned award dated 28-2-2008 (Annexure-Pl1) passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Durg, is bad on account of the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured. He also submits that the driver of the vehicle was also not having possession of the valid licence. 2) The Tribunal after hearing all the parties came to the conclusion that the petitionerllnsurance Company has failed to establish that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured. The Tribunal has further held that this is the responsibility of the Insurance Company to establish that there \‘\\ was no insurance at all or the vehicle concerned was not insured with the RESPOND @ petitioner/Insurance Company. With tegard to driving licence, enquiry was made and the Regional Transport Officen Raipur, submitted that the driving iicence was not issued from the office of Regionai Transport Ofticer. 3) Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that no appeal shati lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees. The purpose seems to be laudable, as for grant of less than Rs.1 0,0001— the complainant should not be dragged to the Court. 4) Be that as it may, sin the amount of compensation invlved is only an amount of Rs.1,000l-, it is not necessary to go into the aspect that whether the drivr was not in possession of th valid driving licence. This cour oes not exercise writ jurisdiction only, but is a court of equity also. 5) This court n exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Artie 227 of he Constitution of India should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the court below, except in such cases where perversit, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional erroris writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. f5) Having regard to the facts situation of the case, wherein only a sum of Rs.1 ,OOOI- has been awarded to the injured person, it is not necessary to interfere wi the award passed by the Tribunal. 7) ln view of the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, t.A.No.1 stands disposed of.//,_,/ 8) // Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 5 Gowri j;ar ’ a a/,4 x1 ce o e e t d i cl t y th