//- ^-^sV- 1^' ^y ^ W 'hSi COUKT OF CHHA1 i»^i^T'Tr"' AT ^•figc. At?De^l N^ APPELLANT IMendant No3 R@PONDENT Ctaitnartt No.l T^T"tETLT^^~-^T-- TT~^T"':'^ TTT^ BffiPONElENT ./ aaia-iant No.2 ffiNT p&fetidant Nci.1 Defendant No.2 72004 srsus — ^ z 3. /^ t^^^'^nn KQ?' llV'iSJUii DBi National Insurance Cixrpan)? Ltd., ttirough Branch Qffice, EilaspuT(CG.). Hran Bai, 5.5 yeare, Wd/o Fiiiia Kewat, R,/o WUage- Lt.tse, TAsiS - Kl'iairaaarfi, rastrict- Rajnandgaan (CG). tod'iet', 35 yeais, S/o FMia Kewat, R/o VQl.aKe- Luse, Tehau - Khan-agarh, LSsb-ic't- I-apliandgaon (C<3.) Chetan Yadii, 28veais, / _ .• ^y/ ^&/ S/Q ^M/ '0.-"' ^•' ^•<8^-' .'v^' <"'^/?' R/o V3ia.ge- Gatawar, ^ '^'''^ Tehsil- KIiaiTagarh, Kstrict- Rajnandgaon (CG.) Mohd Usman Khan, 35 yeare, S/'o A Hlissain, R/o NearMasjid, Ksl&wadi, Distt. Durg (CG.). 1%. SE^. A 1; •Tf-iv lurrmn •»; l.JTa.E iVAI^i.^?. K HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. No. 159 of 2004 Appellaut National Insuran.ee Company Ltd. Versus Respondents Firan Bai & of&ers MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MQTQR VEHICLES ACT; 1988 DB: HonTjle Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri B. N. Naade, Advocate for the appeUant. Shri Badruddia Khau, Advocate fbr fhe respondents No. 1 aud 2. Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4. 4. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on fhis 24th day ofSeptember, 2010) iiJ. Heard. The iustaiit appeal, filed by the appeBant Insuraace Company, arises from the award dated 12th September, 2003, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Clamis Tnbunal, Khairagarh, in Claun Case No. 20/2002, on fhe ground ofquaatum as weU as UabUity. The facts, in brief, arc fhat on 12.4.2002 at about 7.15 p.m. iu fhe eveniug when deceased Ramhu along with his coustu brother Dhanraj was retumiug to his hoine froni Khairagarh on a bicycle, flie accident was caused by the vehicle, bearmg registration No. C.G. - 07-ZA/0139, as it was beiag driven by fhe non-applicaxit No.l iu a rash and negligent manni-r.As a result ofthe accident RamTiu died. The i^spondents No. l aad 2/claunants, beiag legal heirs of flie deceased, had filed a claioi case for award of a total compensation of Rs. 29,55,000/- under various heads. Learued Tribunal haviag regard io fhe facts aad circuinstauces aad the evidence ou record, granted a total coinpeusation ofRs. 6,26,500/-. In respect of quantum., there is no pemiission uader SecUoii 170 of fhe Motor Veliicles Act, 1988, as such ti.ie iastant appeal is not inauitauiable on fhis groiind. Now ttie question reinains regardiag the driviiig Uceace and fhe iasuraace policy. , ^ / •^ 11 S^ j T!:-ri^ur 5. The vehicle was iasured wifh fhe appeUaat for fhe period froin 5.2.2002 to 4.2.2003. The accident had taken place on 12.4.2002. Therefore, the vehicle was insured on fhe date of fhe accident iu question. Pui-fher, with regard to fhe validity of fhe driving Ucence, the appeUant has failed to prove and uot produced any evidence by which it could be shbwn that fhe driver of fhe vehicle was not havin< fhe valid and effective driviag Ucence on the date of incident and fhus fhe Tribuiial has riglifly held fhat ia absence of aay proof it cannot be said that fhe driver of fhe vehicle was not having the vafid aiid effective driving Ucence. 6. In view of tfae above, fhere is uo force in this appeal aad fhe saine is disnussed. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi .Tudge Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ^