^ir^ INTHE HONBLE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR ~4^-n^^^ /€^)r M.A.(C) No. :.l..:r. ^ OF 2009 w; (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs.60.000/-l APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT. 1988. ^^ APPELANT (NON- APPLICANT ^/N0.3) ...^••±1^-y ^•^^:^\^^ ^ttfc7 0<^- ^^ RESPONDENTS (APPLICANT) :1. (Np^r- APPLICANT No: 'e :1)^ (NON-APPLICANT No.2) :3. Jnited India Insurance Company Limited, Through: Its Branch Manager, Branch- Office, Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G) VERSUS Amamath Patel, S/0- Kalicharan Patel, aged- 32 years, occupation-Cloth Shop, R/0-.Village-Maheva, Tah.- Wadrafnagar, P.S. Basantpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Pavan Kyumar Jayswal, S/0- Dhruv Prasad Jayswal, aged about-22years, R/0-VUlage- Kogwar, Tah.-Wadrafnagar, P.S. Basantpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). Satnam Kaur D/0- Sardar Singh Chhabda, R/0- Gurudwara Ward Ambicapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). -i ^"' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT (NON- APPLICANT No.3) RESPONDENTS APPUCANT l.A.{C)No.470of2009 United India Insurance Company Ljmited Versus Amamath Patet and others. APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHtCLES ACT. 1988 (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellarrt. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18th day of January, 2010) This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 18-11-2G08 passed by First Additionai IVIotor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C,), Ramanujganj, Disflt. Surguja (for short "the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.7/2007 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.60,000/- has been awarded Jn favour of the claimant holding Jjable appellant/lnsurance Company for its payment. 2. The facts briefly stated ar©as under: On 28-07-2004, the claimant met with an accident with Hero Honda motorcycle bearing regjstration No. CG 15 C/7507 owned by respondent No.2 and being driven by r^pondent No.1 at the time of accident as a resultof which he sustained grievous injuries. 3. The respondents/claimants preferred an appllcatjon under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Acf) claiming Rs.6,71,000/- as compensatjon for the injuries sustained by him m the said accident against the driver, owner and insurer of the said motorcycle. The ciaimant examined himself and one Amardatt SJngh (AW-2). The respondents have not examlned any witness In rebufitei. 4. Learned Tribunal on close scrutiny of the e^dence ied, materiaj pEaced and submissions made by the parties, awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order till its payment against the appellant as well as respondents No.2 and 3, hence this appeal. J. 5. Learned counsel for the appeltant would submit that tfte driver of the motorcycje was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The police case was registered against him also under Section 3/181 and 39/192 of the Act, since the driver of the motorcycle was not having valid and effective driving licence at th® time of accident. Learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the liabjlity of payment of compensation upon the appellant/lnsurance Company. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the award impugned and records of the case. 7. Admittedly, the appellant did not examine any officer from the Company nor examined the driver of the said vehicte nor submitted any document which could show that the driver of the offending vehicle was not havjng the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the owner of the vehicle breached ttie conditions of the policy, even did not file and prove the policy and policy conditions so as to show that the owner of the vehicle has breached any specific condition ofthe policy in this regard. 8. Undisputedly, it is for the appelfant to prove the defence of driving licence taken under Section 149 of the Act which the appellant utterly faiJed. h4erely if a challan is filed by the police authorities agajnst the driver ofthe said vehtele under Section 3/181 and 39/192 of the Act, without any further proof it cannot be said that the driver pf the said vehicle was not having driving licence or the appellant has succeeded in proving the defence in view of Section 149 of the Act. 9. In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegallty or perveisity in awarding and holding liable to the appellant for payment of compensation to the claimant. 10. In view of the foregoing, the appeal being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed atthe admission stoge. Kvr Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge