J' HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR SinflleBench : Hon'ble Shri DiliD Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Misc. Appeaj (Cl No. 11 60/2007 Appellant ft Respondents -1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., R.S.S.Market, Power House, BhtlaJ, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (InsurerfbrmQtorcyGleBajajBoxerNb. C.G. 07 A/9864),PolicyNo. 2006/146, Limitation date t 23.06.2005 to 22.6.2006. Versys 1 l'". . • '• ::' •• . ' ' ,".• • Smt. Pramila Verma, widow Tungan Singh Verma,ageabout43yrs. Sanjay Kumar yerma, S/o Late Tungan Singh Verma, Age about 24 yrs. I Ku. Suman Verma, D/o Late Tungan SinghVerrna,Ageabout21yrs. Ku. Vina Verma, JD/Q Late Tungan Singh Verma, age about 19years. Smt. Dashoda | Verma widow Sakharam Verma, age about86yrs. All respondents No.1 to 5 residents of village Gujara, Thana Patan, Distt. Durg.(C.G.) j Bhupendra KumarjSahu, S/bSewaram Sahu, age about 21 Yrs., R/o Biretara, Thana, Kurud, Distjt. Dhamtari. (Driver of Motor Qycle Yamaha Crush N6.05A/7884) 1 Komal S/o Mangal Singh Sahu, age about 34 yrs., R/o village •Limtara, Thana Arjuni, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (Owner of Motor Cycle Yamaha Crush No.05A/7884)l / Badri Prasad Mandharia S/o Late Chowaram Mandharia, R/o Village Chetuva, ppst Nardha, Tahsil Ahivara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Driver of Motor Cycle Yamaha Crush N0.07A/9864) Abpeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 8. Present : ShriSudhirAgrawal.counselfor the appellant. ^ ShriiJitendraGupta,cOunselfortherespondehtsNo.^to5. Noone a'ppearsfortheremainingrespohdentsthough served. Qk.|: L .!' .^^S^.^i^^^ nin11.'. -4 fei.. <:r ORAL OR&ER (Passedbn 29t"February2008) Heard on admjssion; 2. Theappellant/insurerisaggrieveclbyaniawarddated 26.04.2007 passed in claims case No.4172007 ^)y 5th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (henceforth, the M.A.C.T.) whereby out of the total compensation awarded^the liabitity wasfastened on the appellant/insurer lp pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-,. | 3. Brief facts are that a head on collisiontqokplaceon 16.03.2006 at 3.30 P.M. nearSelood canal near Patan rbad belween two motorcycles.^^ ThedeceasedSugamSinghwasriclingamotorGycleNp.C;G.07A9864 which was insured by the appellant/insurer. The other motor cycle No. C.G.05 A 7884 driven by Bhupendra KumarlSahu, respbndent No.6 herein was not insured. T 4, The M.A.C.T. held that the accideht occurred due to contributory negljgence of both drivers. The M.A.C.T. furthef held that the elaimants were entitled to receiveonly 50% of the cpmpensation assessedbYit.It also held that under the policy of insurance issued by the appellanVinsurer, the risk oftheowneraswellasthedriverofthemotor cycle No.C.G. 07 A 9864wascovered toth&extentof Rs.1,00,000/- only. It, therefbre, fastened liability oh the appel|ant- inisurance company to pay compensationonlytotheextentofRs.1,Qp,OOQ/-.ltislhisorderwhichis under challenge in this appeal. >, 5. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel fpr the. insurance company did not dispute that the motQr cycle No. 'C.G. 07 A 9864 driven by the deceased was insured by the appellant - insyrance company and risk of the owner as well as the driver of the -mofor cycle was covered to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000^- under the policy ofinsurance. 6. The sole ground urged by the learned coynsel for the appellant is that since the .accident occurred due to cbntributory negligence of the ^;- .:'.."..•;;'; :. -' driver, the appellant — insurance company was not liahle to pay ^.'. /1 ^';':".-.-: ..'••..•':..•••;.':';: :'1.1:;-;.::1'-/..?~' CQmpensation. Hesubmittedthaf theentirecOmpensatibnawardedbythe M.A.C.T. hasbeen deposited beforethe M.A.C.T. \ ^:^'^~^~- sa ^". .4" 7. Having considered the submission, 1 have perused the award. Ih viewoftheundispytedfactthatmotorcycleNo,C.G.Q7A9864drivenby the deceased was insured by the appellant^^^- owneraswellaSthedrJverwascoveredtotheextentofRs.1,00,000/-,l am of the considered ppinion that the impugried prder whereby the 1iabiljty was fastened bn the appellant - insurance^^^^^^c^ sum of Rs.1,00,000/-out ofcompensationawarded,cannot|befaulted. 8. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed at the stageofadmission. DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh ^ '%, mm