<c.^ /a IN TI-IE HIGI-I COURT OF TUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH (gne MISC.APPEAL. N0.w OF 2003 f 1- ^YELLANT/ 'INSURER ^..<^' .%"> ,..-^^ .^^:" '^y RESPONDENTS/ ^[t)RPv7ER] RESPONDENT/ [OWNER] RESPONDENT/ [GLAIMANT] ^ National msurance Co. Ltd. through ifs Branch Manager, Branch Office/ Bilasptir (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS ^ k Mohd. Akeel S/o NIohd.Sakeel y\ ^ @ Basheer, aged about 30 years/ R/o Darripara, Kawardha, District Kawardha [C.G.] ,2. Gurupal Singh, S/o Kuldeep Singh, Resident of Main Road, Kawardha, Dist.Kawardha[CG] ^ 3. MandKuinar @ NandKumar, ?1 ^ S/oMehtar Satnami,aged about 3o •^•&yi' | R/o Koylari Kalan, P. S. Kunda, Tah. Pandariya, Dist.Kawardha. H APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 _.^L-^:1_ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Apoeal No. 393 of2003 APPELLANT Insurer RESPONDENTS National Insur^nce Co. Ltd. Versus Mohd. Akeel & Others 5N1730F' tSB: HffintMeMr.NJK.Aearwal,J^ ^ L Present : 8hriSanjayKAgrawal,Advoeatef(M"theaCTpeUaiit. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for respondeat No. 1&2. Smt. Neelima V^ma, Advocirte for resp<mdent No.3 i^pears on behatfofSmt. Bhawna Nigam. ORALORDER (Passed on 12th day ofJufy, 2010) 1. With the consent ofthe parties, lie matter is heard finally. 2. This is insurer's appeal directed against the awatd dated 28.022003, passed by the IIfrd Additional Motor Aceident Claims Tribunal Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal), in Claim Case No. 19/2002, whereby and whereunder aa amount of Rs. 60,000/-has been awaided as compensation in favour of claimant holding the aiqwllant/insuTmice company Uable for its payment to the claimant. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 18.05.1999, Truck bearing rcgistration No. MP-23/B-0044, being driven by the respondentNo. 1; owned by the respondent No. 2 and insared by the appellant, dashed the cteimant/respondent No. 3, as a result ofwhich the elaimant sustained multiple injures. @^^^:- Ife^-^" s^ G. . \ 4. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe MV Act, claiming Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by hun in the said aceident, against the driver, ovmer and insurance company ofthe said Truek. 5. The insuraace company denied the claim on the ground that the Driver ofthe ofFending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time ofaccident and the license was fake and therefore, it could not be held Mable for payment ofcompensation to the claimant. The iasurance eompany did not examine RTO persons to prove the defmce tafeen by it in its written statement. 6. The Tribuaal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available oa the rceord, and submissions ofthe parties, awarded Rs. 60,000/-as compensation ia favour of the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident, holding the appellant/insuranee company liable for its payment to the claimant, Kgecting its defence on fhe ground that theappellant did not suhstantiate its defence taken m the written statement by examining RTO persotis and proving that tiie said license was fake and forged. Shri Sourabh Sharma, leamed eounsel for the appellant/insurance company would contend that looking to the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the defence taken by the insurance company and K ^^ ^ Sahu in awarding the compeasation also agamst Ifae insurance company. 8. On the other hand, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents supported the award and submitted that lookiag to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability for payment of compensation upon the insurance company. 9. I have heard the eoiinsel appearing for the parties, perused the award impugned and records ofthe Tribunal. 10. It is trite law that burden to prove the defence taken by the insurance company is upon it. It is not ia dispute fhat the appellant did not examine the RTO persons so as to prove whether the license was forged & fake or not. In siich situation, it cannot be said tiiat Ihe Tribunal has committed any illegality in fastenmg Uabilily upon Ihe appellant/msuranee company. 11. In view of above, the appeal, beiag devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N- K. Agarwal Judge ^.^—.-^S^ss^ K=S-^^-;r=^=^=-^:=I^2?S!a3^S3=^S=^^ H@£;iu*te