N a p hilai tt r, Sucla, B Dis‘ Durg S j Kumar Suryawanshi, R/o V' Uchha Bhatti, Seepat, -Tah. 65 Distt. Bilaspur, Present ad ress .Supela, Bhilai, Distt; D (Chhattisgarh) y: ‘ SaJhtosh Kumar Sumanshi, RESPONDENT [C}a1ma.nt) £43007 Shri Sanjay K g. ‘1/ Agrawal, appellant] Insurer. S/é Budhram Smyawanshi, ~ Agéd about 2O years, R/ Vill. Ponsam, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 1 x l m:a l GRPRJ FS/246 " 2/2007 —50,oeof counsel for the a/ -iN. WW,W,W @ m m f ...................................‘:.....m 200 mm (W) ’f mmm‘ WW'§@W éswanéw This appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 13.2.2004 passed in Claims Case No. 42/2002 whereby The learned Claims Tribunal even after holding that driver of the erring vehicle was not haying valid and effective driving licence at the time ’of accident and even after absolving the Insurance Company fmm the payment of compensation, has directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the owner and driver of the 2 herein. vehicle i.e. respondents No. 1 I have heard learned co sel for the appellant. > The above direction isued bv the learned Claims Tribunal is in accordance wi the judgment of the Hon’ble td. V Accidents Claims Journal t has been held that “whereon adjudication of the claim undegr the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its ' defence in accordance with thé provisions of section 149(2).of read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this court above, the, Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured fdgr the compensation and other Apex Court in the matter of N tional Insurance Swaran Singh reported in 2 1, wherein paragraph 102 (x) i‘nm i GRPRJ FS/246—~ 2/2007 ~— 50,000. d L s. I Co. 0 XI—HC—78 @ mm (W) em WW Wm 3W: WW mwm 3 ! WWW WWR %35IEm$n%?i ,\‘\/ 1’ amounts which it has been compellcd to pay to the third party § under the awani of the Tribunal. I In visw of above, thure is no illsgality or iniirmity in the i \ inlpugled awani of the learned Chims Tribunal which calls for ‘1' interference. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of substance ' § is ‘liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is herebv dismissed. . SdF DmENDRAMIsHRA Judge HW,W,W mm m 290