P!“? ’4*¥’*‘:"W~:m‘r- v li‘wwwr 'm— ‘ ~ a IN THE HEGH COURT OF (EHATTJSQARH AT BILASPUR BE;PQNQEN13 4. amhymrcmndrgm Béfendant Mel § w. €. a Lakhém Lal r‘handiakar 5f (5E -"1...~‘1"§§'{€" 3. i, M . .0" R/o Dimmt Owner- village si: Mahasmméma) Tm 321mm he MI‘ P a Wig/WT! am: ; ‘ Q. ¢‘\"‘w‘..--"‘ a M . “o .9 . $h" w"'§ ;\ _.? ‘ :Q‘‘ x ’ —Ownerr— w APmLu UNDER @ECHON 172 OF THE MOTOR vmwmséacr « Q " k MANQ 5'9 / ,{2002 fl £PELL§3NT {Hana} mm‘qnc? DefEmiant Na3 Faripaiiy Rag‘m‘ %%:mug’1 E’imqmwri Manegeg‘ 311 Manegeg‘ 15mg“ BJiaspur (C G } — Versus —~ 3£_5;P{}N}jg§§: 1 Emma m Gaimam N01 L7 W6 ,r o Late Ganga Raiil Dpwamaan ' I Ja5ed aha It c5 Jean, PJESPONDHQT- 2. J Claimant No.2 Han‘ Qhankar Q r ‘ g Qx’o Late Ganga Ram Dewangan, AgrJd abuut Q3 vean; Befh Rx g o Baromia Bazar, RS, and Tehsil— Mahasarmmd, i fishict — Adahasmmmd. PESPONDFNT x Kgilrmjyg Lair. Qéfenziemt Nan} " Sgb Ajfun Yaiiéw, Qn‘ver sf sf Tnxk Na. EwiR 2%G;’?27(3, Rio Viilage Edsonda , 13$ and District ~ Mahasmmd(CG.) (’ —{,‘:;iv§r— Sr.Advocat with Shri Vinay Pande, ‘eCompany. . 8hri Prashant Jayaswal, counsel for the appellanmnsuranc e y Shri J.A.Lohani. counsel for responden Nos.1 an 2. 4 has bn sewed Wit {he Summons, ee h Respondent Nos. 3 and even then none appears for them. ties. the appeal is finaily heard. e d ace 1002 pa Tribunal, Mahasamund in Ciaim Cas No. 12/2001 whereby an award f Rs.80,000]— has been passed in favour jointly and severall and‘ te appellant/insurance Company ha been mae liable to satisfy the Award. The only grievance of the appellant i tat he Claims ribunal even ph 23 of the Ard that he driver of the vehicle involved in the accident n the relevnt ate, di nt ave valid liability upon the insurance Company instead of recovering the same fr m the owner o he vele. f t hic l have gone through the impugned Awd passe y the Clams basis o h statement of Shri \fiy Rather, employee of the Region l Transpor f aipur, has arrived o the conclusion that the driver of he vehicle, respondent No.3 hern. was the time of accident and thus, s per e o A t b t With the consent of the pa n preferre by theappellntlinsuran ‘ Company against the impugned order dated 27122 ssed by Ist Additional Motor Accident Cla This misc. appeal has b ~ of the, respondent after recording a finding in parag driving licence, has fastened th Tribunal where the Tribunal on t Ohoé, R t ei a provisions of Section 149 (2 (a) (ii) of th Motr Vehicles ct, the appellant / insurance C mpany was no liale o pay the not having valid driving licence t d e i y h d s h t T a wa t a d d o h ar d b i e f te na XI-HC-22 y/ HW,®M, 3mm Wm f” ’$ ...£.53?.[...W 200A W mm?! WW W'H1%a WWW WW§MW éswm 30.03.2005 M g.“ , m‘v/ w». u " M XI—HC-ZZ mam mm mmw - l, WW§WWA WW cpmpensation as the vehicle ir‘ question at the time of accident was mag by a driver who was not‘ having valid driving 1icence and as such, the vehicie was being used in the breach of policy condition. However, learned counse for the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 relying upon the judgment rep rted in 2004 AIR SCW $63 in the matter and others submits that initially the liability to sat sfy the order of Award lies upon the Insurance Company who can re over the$ amount paid to third party on behalf of insured and the l surance Company can not shake off its liability to pay the compensation nly by saying that at the relevant point of time the vehicle was driving by a person having no licence. Therefore, the y lnsurance Company cannot be bsolved from the liability of satisfying the Award. " > However, as per binding judgments of the Hon‘ble Apex Court referred above, the appeal isatlowed and the Award is modihed to the extent that the appellant ilnsura ice Company shall satisfy the Award at the first instance and thereafter, the appellant shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the o‘ ner or driver thereof and the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the amount which has been compelled to pay to the third party under the Award of the Tribunal. With the aforesaid modification in the-Award, the appeal is disposed of but without any order as to costs. _ Sd/- DHmENDRA MISI-mm Judge :‘4. .a 4x r (dew) h