rm HK3H COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH: BELASPUR SingSe Bench: Hon'ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb DeshrriVkh, J. SV!.A.C. No. 496 of 2006 Appellant : PardeshJ Ram Dhruv, S/o Shri Rati Ram Dhruv; aged about 41 years; Occupation-Teacher, R/o Village Ermoor Police Station Lohandiguda^ Tahsii-Jagdalpur, Djstrict-Bastar (CG) Versus Respondent ; The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Main Road, Jagdaipur District Bastar (CG) MisceiSaneous appeai under Section 173 of the iVIotor Vehicle Act, 1988 Present: Shri R. N. Jha, counsel for the appeiiant. Shri Ajay Mishra, counse! for the respondent. ORAL (Passedon 22.08.2008) Heard on admission. (2) The 4th Additionai Motor Aocidents Claims Tribunai (henceforth the Tribunai') has in clairns case No.45/2005 djsmlssed the appiication for compensation on the ground that the insurer v./as not iiabie to pay compensafion for the injury' sustained by the owner due to his rash and negligent driving. (3) " Learned counse] for the appeilant did not dispute that the appejiant is the owner or the motor'cycle No.CG-17-B/0421 (henceforth the (motor cycle') and was riding the same on 11.04.2002. The motor cycle siipped due to vvhich the appeiiant sustained grievous injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant aiso did not dispute that underthe policy ofthe insurance (Ex. D-1), rssk of the owner was not covered and premium was paid oniy to cover the statutory liabiiity towards third party. (4) . Since the risk of the owner was not covered under the poiicy and the accident occurred soieiy due to the negligence of the owner the insurance company was not liabie to pay compensation. (5) In this view-ofthe matter, the award passed by the Tribunai cannot be faulted vvith. There is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismjssed at the stage of admission. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh . Judge o^r