HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BfLASPQR IN"TI: / CivU Revlsloa Ko. 136/2003 Oriental Insiuance Company Ltd., NaiveBi (Tamitoadu) Throu^i Branch OfBce-Jagdalpur (Bastex), Thiough. Divisioiial Manager, Bflaspur (C.G.). Appal Raju, 20 years, S/o Tata Rao, R/o Ctuatoor, Tchsfl Bhadracfaalam, District Khauunaia(Aadhra Pradesh). M. JaySisbaai, 35 years, S/o Miu^eshan, R/o Viidacfaal, District Sakootgarb, Ballar fTnutoadu). -Dnvcr- D. Govind Raju, S/o T. Taiaboe Swami, R/o Virdachfll,, District Sakootgarh, BaBar fTaulaadu). -Owner- CIVIL REVI80K iniDBR 8ESCTION tlS OF CTCTL PROCBDURB CODE. (SBsHoa'bte Mr. T.P.Sharina, J.) . Present: - Shri Prashant Jaiswal, Sr. AdTOcate with Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate forthe applicant/petitioner. , Ncaie for the respondents. APPLICANT Defendant No. 3 RESPONDENT Claimant RESPONDENT DefendaatNo. 1 RBSPONDENT Defeadant No. 2 VCT»US 1. 2. 3. ORAL-Om»BR (Passedoa 26/1.0/2010l By this civfl revision applicant has ehaBeaged tlie legaMty and pmpiiety of the award dated 20/12/2002 passed by Second Motor Accident Ctedms Tribuaal aad Sccond Additioaal District Judge, Jagdalpur (in short fhe Claims Tribunal') la Clairn caae No. 48/2002 whcreby leamed eiauns Tribunal has awardcd Rs. 5,000/- to respondent No. 1. As per claiin of tlie parties rcspoiuleatNo. 1 atong with other persons werc traveluig ia truck with fheir articles to seB and truck bcaaiag registration No. T.N. 55/3821 was accideat aad caused adj'euy to respondent No. 1. Respoadent No. 1 has filed claiia petition. By ffltn reply present appUcaiit/Oriental Insuraace Coaapaay Ltd. has taken tfae dcfence that owxier fcf thc velucle driviag fhe vehialc ia vialatiimi jof the condition of fhe Insurance PoUcy therefore appMcant is aot Uable for paymcnt of coiapensation. ^- <3 Afber providing an opportunity for heEtting to (he parties leai-ned Claims Tribunal has awanled compensation ofRs. 5000/- to respwalent No. 1. Sfari Pr^haat Jaiswal, Sr. Advocate with Sbri Aj^r Mishra, Advocate for fhe applicant/pctitioacr are heard. Learaed counsel for the appUcant subxuits ttat respondcat No. 1 is traveling as gratuitous passenger ia fhe truck, owner offhe truck has not paid any extra aanount for Such coudition fherefore applicant is aot Hable for paymcnt of coiupensatioa ia vio]ation of fhe policy but by amardmg coiupcnsation ofRs. 5.000/- Court below has eonmutted an iU^^ity. Award impugued aad record of Court below peruscd. Rcasons best kuown to the Oriental Insi.uaace Compaay, Oriental Insurauce Conipany has not ideaded in its written statement fhat what condition ofpoMcy was violated by the owner ofthe vehicle. Reasons bcst known to fhe applicaat, appUcant has not filed copy of policy. He hfs not examined any witncsses iu its support In abseace af any evidence or prove or substantive pteadiag of the applicant, it is difiBcuIt to hold •Qaaf Court betow has coHunitted an iHegaUly or failed to cxercise jurisdictfon vcsted on it or exceeded jurisdiction vested on it,I do not jfind axsy} substance ia the civil revisipn. Consequenffy, civil revision »liabte to be disinissed aad fe hereby disnussed wifh cost. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Jisdge