IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No.[Sl /2006 APPLICANT ^Harbansh Singh S/o- Indarsingh Chawalia, R/o- Baldevbagh, Rajnandgaon Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Owner) VERSUS 3 NON APPLICANTS 1 M ^ Krishana Bhalekar, S/o- Gajanand Bhalekar, Aged about 43 years Occupation Driver (Truck) R/o- Village Chiiriya, Rajnandgaon / Tahsil & Distt. Rajnandgona (C.G.) (Driver) ^) /' Nandkumar S/o- Mohan Aged about 25 years, R/o- Vilage Nayakbandha, Thana, Abhanpur District Raipur (C.G.) (Claunant) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Kanithi line, Rajnandgaon fhrough Divisional Managar,Divisionan Office & Kachahari Chowk Raipur (C.G.) (Insiirer) 3) 4 CIVIL REVISION UNDER_SECTIQN 115 OF THE CWIL PROCEDURE CODE T XI-HC—78 ^^ .°)'^ ^TI^T'^T'^N •'n^^T^Twr^ ^TN^II ^sWGIn ^^r ^it<4id<Li, ^iTl^^Ko, [G!<ni<yli< ^.....c....&.....^..?..:..../.E!.....•^2006 ^i^r1^^ ('^3^^) i^iT^I: °^^'^IT^i' SB: Nonjble Shn Justice N.K. Agj Q5-11-200S Shri Basant Dewangan, coun^el Shri H.S. Patel, counsej for n4n- Heard on M.(C).P. No| condonatlon of delay in filing the r( On due conslderation an^ appjication i am satjsfied that th< explaining the cause of delay In M.(C).P. ss ailowed and the defayl hereby condoned. Heardonadmjssion. The instant revision is filedl against the award dated 10-05-^005 No.85/2005 by IXth Additional Mc (F.T.C.), Raipur (for short 'th^ whereunder a total sum of Rs.50( per annum has been awarded in and against the applicant/owner Company, on the ground that the j the truck asa gratuitous passeng< Facts briefly stated as under '^?^fer4h 'RTH^f ^ fe^ TN^H ^^fOT3^5T waj el for the applicant. n-applicant No.3. 1765/2006, appiicatjon for ivislon. the grounds taken In the applicant has succeeded In iling the revision. Therefore, caused in fijing the revision js by the owner of the vehtele passed jn Claim Case Itor Accident Claims Tribunal i|s Tribunal') whereby and Tp/- along with interest @ 6% ^avour of the injured claimant exonerating the Insurance iinjured person was sitting in il-at the time of accident. /3- + XI-HG—78 ^T^T'^T'^'NT ^^ WWtT ?hN8«fi 7^ ^WWA, ^tTl^^ico, f^<ni<H^< (2.^. /0&, L-rl Wt 200 jC ^I^T 1q^T (iqf^sl<^) z- said -Dn 13-02-2002 when the dajmi? MOR 9901 aiong with a bag of| from Abhanpur to Rajpur, the as a resutt of which the claimt claimant preferred an appllcatiojn compensation on account of the accident. The applicant in his writt^ driver of the truck denied the fac< Insurance Company in its writter ciaimant was travedng in the passenger and therefore, fnsuran|c payment. Learned Tribunal on a closi material availabie on record and parties passed the impugned favour of the claimant and agajnf the Insurance Company from its gratuitous passenger hence this re Learned counsei appearir submit that at the time of acciden^ in the truck but were pedestnans Tribunal has wrongly fastened tht owner; exonerating the fnsurance 4)Nf<rT^f 'W?^f ^ fe?^ <f^l^l< '^at^?a??^T rt was sjtting in the truck No. puise (Dal) and was coming truck met with an accident, int sustained injuries. The daiming Rs.2,50,000/- as injuries sustained in the said sn statement along with the [um of accident. Respondent statement pjeaded that the [said truck as a gratuifous pe Company is not fiable for scrutiny of the evidence led, yie submissjons made by the a^/ard awarding Rs.5,000/- in i^t the appellant, exonerating l|abiljty holding claimant to be jvisjon. n|g for the applicant would the persons were not sitting and, therefore, the (earned ^ Ijability upon the appiicantv ^ompany from its liability. 1% -+ '^ 1 i«»!|S^I %.... %'^ '•^--^x^&'--' XI-HG—78" ~5^ ^l'41d<LI, ^tTl-fH^Ko, ^^ll-yy -^.....^:.^:....^±'..J..£.L ^fPf^S ^*18qi ^^^ ('^5^^) ^I^I^T'i^W •^m.CT^?^^p^ Kvr i^IW^a^t^ -^- 1 have heard the learned have carefuily gone through the rej: In the written statement fllet the driver of the vehicle, factum <i 'notasked anything in the cro( suggesting the injured person as| accident and, therefore, mere sN pleading if disbeljeved by the commjtted any illegality in doing so| 3t is trite (aw that no amounl into without pleading. The ffndir Tribunai regardlng the factthat thel said truck as gratuitous passengls deserves to be upheld. No For the foregoing reasons, the revjsion fiJed by the applicant. liable to be and is hereby djsmissec cjounsel for the applicant and ;ord. by the appjjcant along with ^ accident itseff was denied; ss-examinatjon of applicant a pedestrian at the time of t^Eement of the driver without Tribtlnai then the Tribunai has not 4)1^4N^TH^f ^ "fe^ <f^$l< ^4RP?3^T of evidence can be looked t9 recorded by the (earned sjclalmant was traveiing in the ^r is based on material and other g(|ound has been raised. po not find any substance in I Therefore, the revision js at admission stage. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^