HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) NO. 3291 OF 2008 PETITIONERI N.A.No.3 New India Insurante Company Ltd.. through the Branch Manager, 2" Floor, Raipur Development Authcrity Bhawan, Bajrang Market. GE Road, Raipur, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Bilaspur (CG). Versus REsPONDENTS 1. Smt Kaiiya Bai Marar, wife of Ram Lal Marar, aged about 65 years, occupation Labourer, resident of village Baargaon, PS & Tah. Berla. Distt. Durg (CG). fmgiicant 2. Punau Ram, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Anjore Das Dhruw, occupation — Vehicle Driver, R/o vill. Rawa, P.S. Arjuni, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). N.A.No.1 3. Parmanand Verma, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Khoob Ram Venna, occupation ~ vehicle owner, caste Kurmi, R/o vill. Girendra, PS. Tah. and Distt. Raipur (CG). N.A.No.2 (Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present : Shri Ali Aegar, counsel for the petitionerllnsurance Company. ORAL’ORDER (Passed on this 18“; day of August, 2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Insurance Company submits that the impugned award dated 28-2-2008 (Annexure—PH) passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Durg, is bad on account of the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured. He also submits that the driver of the vehicle was also not having possession of the valid licence. 2) The Tribunal alter hearing all the parties came to the conctusion that the petitionerllnsurance Company has failed to establish that the vehicle invotved in the accident was not insured. The Tribunal has further held that this is the responsibility of the Insurance Company to establish that there \\ was no insurance at all or the vehicle concerned was not insured with the \ \ ; @ petitioner/lnsuranca Company. With regard to driving licence, enquiry was made and the Regional Transport Ofticer, Raipur, suhmitted that the driving licence was not issued from the office of Regionai Transport ()fiioer. 3) Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that no appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees“ The purpose seems to be laudable, as for grant of less than Rs.10,000/- the complainant shouid not be dragged to the Court. 4) Be that as it may, since the amount of compensation involved is only an amount of Rs.1,000/-, it is not necessary to go into the aspect that whether the driver was not in possession of the valid driving licence. This court does not exercise writ jurisdiction only, but is a court of equity also. 5) This court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irreguiarity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 6) Having regard to the facts situation of the case, wherein only a sum of Rs.1 ,OOOI- has been awarded to the injured person, it is not necessary to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. f ;pu - »/_/., 7) ln view of the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. 8) Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Sdl- ., Agnihotr.‘ satish K. Judge