é @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) NO. 3298 OF 2008 PETITIONERI New India Insurance Compan Ltd., N.A.N0.3 thraugh the Branch Manager. 2 Floor, Raipur Development Authority Bhawan, Bajrang Market, GE Road, Raipur, through Divisiona! Manager, Divisional Office, New India insurance Co. Ltd., Biiaspur (CG). Versus 1. Smt. Chandrika Bai, wife of Ram Lal Marar, aged about 65 years. occupation Labourer, resident of viilage Baargaon, PS & Tah. Beria. Distt. Durg (CG). Aggiicant 2. Punau Ram, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Anjore Das Dhruw. occupation — Vehicle Driver, Rlo viii. Rawa, P.S. Arjuni, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). RE$PQNDENTS N.A.No.1 ‘V 3. Parmanand Verma, aged about 35 years, son of Shn' Khoob' Ram Verma, 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 Satieh K. Agnihotri, J. Present : Shri Ali Asgar, counsel for the petitioner/insurance Company. a; ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 18 day of August, 2008) earned counsel appearing for the petitioner/insurance Company submits that the impugned award dated 27-2—2008 (Annexure-P/1) 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 aiso submits that the driver of the vehicle was also not having possession of the valid licence. 2) The Tribunal after hearing all the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner/insurance Company has failed to establish that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured. The Tribunal has further held that ‘ I this is the responsibiiity of the insurance Company to establish that there \\ was no insurance at all or the vehicle concerned was not insured with the \. i‘ ,«.d ‘e .\ \\\. L " petitioner/Insurance Company With regard to driving licence, enquiry was made and the Regional Transport Officer, Raipur, submmed that the driving licence was not issued from the office of Regional Tiansport Officer. 3) Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehiclee Aci, 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 should 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 writjurisdiction only, but is a court of equity also. 5) This court in exercise of its supervisory turisdiction 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, irregularity 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. 7) ln view of the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. 8) Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of. /// Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri If: /