y /<'Ksw- BQ fiEJE.^INl^-HIGHi^QtJ^ M.A. (C)Nb.- AMELLANT^ 7~: ——- RESPONDENTS ^" THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CQ^^^ .THRpUGH;-.^ ..;]f^,^^^ BftANCHOFFICE,RAJENi)RANAGAReHOWK, TAHSIL AND DlSTt.- BILASPUR C.G., .Vrs-:.--- •-\1.:J^1'''^^^ ^JSH\VAR.;,JP|tAS^l|.KASHYAlP^^ KASHYAP,AGEARbUT32YRS,RES]EDENTOF VILLAGE'^LAKSEiA, ^,TIlANA^JTAKIlAfPUR, TAHSILANDDISTT.-BILASPURC.G. 1 ' ../ ••••• \. ' :..' •• :'1^'''' .1.; "ll.:•ll..-,'^^''ll.:::.^. CHETAN SINGHS/O^OSHANSINGHRAlFHORE, RESroENT OF VILLAGESAI)HWA^NI,THANA PENDRA, DIStT.-BILASPURC.G.,, ^RESENT ADDRllSS- TRANSPORT NAGAR, KORBA,TA]^ltANDDISTT.-KC)RBAG ••I • •:^-. •. '^-.: -.•• CDMVEROF TRUClK/DUMPHERJNO^Ki.A.Ol/A- 6035); '..,.• ..''j:,/.1 : ••;,'Y/l\'''':fl.--'';.1^ • RAJENBRA11:KUM!AR'; •AG'RA\VAL;'^S/'&^'SHRli SATYANARAVAN ^GItAV^I., RESIDENT^^^Q^ ^T]^NSPO^NAG|4.R^'kORBA,;TAHSIL^ IDISTT.-KORBA',C.G:;'/.:^;-1:1'.^;^^ (REGISTERED OWNER OF TRUCK/DtJMPlBER :NO.-K.A.01/A^6035)|,.'\:'''':\':''^ MISCEI.^ANEOUS APPEAL U]»tt)ERSEGTION 173 MOTORVEHICLEACT 1988 t\ ^m ^s^ ^5^ %T --^''. •^l^ivajp-,:Ii^sad,;|g^^^^ ;i^;;|l«^|llffli',IBat<^a»#:.^•' ateGi^. ; ^ ^iae<»^:;»ti»NI^ • '^:1|I^A,: :^','|^i|^;l;:».^,<lli«]safc. ^ifsa^ssi«a3^."QtyVs^^i^v^v'M^v*: ' .•;;''' • •' ' ' • '' /• HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARK AT BILASPUR MISC.APPBALfCIlffQ. 326 OF 2007 APPBLLANT Tlie New India Assuraiice Co. Ltd. Versus RBSPONDBNTS : Ishwai' Pmsad Kashyap aiid others. APPBAL U/S 173 OF THB MOTOR VEKICLB ACT. 1988 (DB: Hon'bleShi'i I.M. Ouddusi & Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin. JJ.I Pyesexit : Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the appeUaiit. None for fbe rcspondents fhough served. ORALORDBR (Passedon 29th day ofJuly, 2011) Per I.M. Oiiddiisi, J. List is being revised. No one appeai-s for fhe respoiidents, 2.. Tfals appfeal has been flled by fhe appellaat/Insuraiice Compat3y agauist the impugued award dated 25-11-2006 passed by the First Addltloual Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bliaspur (for short fhe Claims TribuuaT) m claica case No.135/2005 ia so far as it relates to fasteniag tlie liablllly to pay coiiipensation upon the respondents iacludiag fhe A. appellaiit/ Insui'ance Coinpaiiy. 3. Brief facts of the case are fh.at the appellaiit and respondeiits No, 2 & 3 were lasurer, driver aiid owner respectivefy. The respoudent No. 1 was euaployed uuder respondent No,3 to work as helper in ^Truck/dumper beadng^ registi'ation No. KA-01/A-6035. On 18-03-2005, durmg tiie course of enxployBient the said tnick/duixiper got punctured aiid while rejiiu^ing tlie tyre with flie help of Jack, tiie driver •^J' witiiout giYuig.&ay uidication to him (helper) started tiie said veliicle due to ^iich he came under fhe Tx'uck/Dufliper and received gilevous^ ibjuries on his vest aad bacKbone. Thereafter, he had^ faken treataieirt at various hospitals, however, he becaoie perinaaently disabled. .-^^ ^i &' ||NII 4. Tfcie clalfiiant preferred ao. appUcatfon before fhe ClalmS Tribunal uiider Section 166 of tlie Motor Vehioles Act (for short 'flie Act"), claiming couuLpensation to tlie tune of Rs. 11,57,000/ - for thie injuiles sustaiaed by him. 5. Leariied TribuAial on a close scTutiiiy of the evideuce, niafceiial placed aiid subiuissions Biadel)y tiie parties, h<as awarded a totSLl sujin ofRs.7,14,000/-ascoi3aLpeiAsationagauist fhe iioii-appUcaatsalong wlth Mterest @ <y>o per aiiuuiii froiii tiie date of flie application tUl its payiaent, under various heads, 6. We have heard learned couusel for fhe appeUarit and perused the records of tiie Tribunal, 7. The appeUant/Insurance Coiiipaiiy has successfuLUy proved fhat tlie driver ofthe offenduig vehicle (Truek/DxiBiper) was uot having a valld aiid effective driving llcence at fhe tLuie of accident. The liceiice subraitted by the driver was fake. Iii tiiis regard, stateiiient of tiie official froiii R.T. O. Office was recorded to verify tliis fact but it is nbt kiiowii wheflier flie owner had taken fhe driver iii service with precautioja iiientk?iied under fhe law aad as such tiie appeal is liable to be allowed aad tiie appellant/Iusuraiice Compaiiy is Uable to be exonerated. ik- 8, In tlie result, tlie appeal Is allowed. The appellant/lnsuraiice Coiiipaiiy is exonerated froin its liability to pay conipensatlon. However, it wlU be open for fhe appeUant/ liistuance Coiiipany to recover fh.e aniount of coinpensation froin fhe owner ofthe vehicle. 9, It is necessaiy to Bientioii fhat we have not examiaed tlie questlon of quaiituni aiid it wlU be opeu for tlie owner to challenge the 'q^iaiittLoi, if so advised. 9. Tlie amoi^Lit ifany, already paid shall be refuuded to flie ^ appeUant/ Insura^Lce Coiiipany. Kvr Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge