1 'PAGF 1 '^i ^.i^ : ^ ^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR M.A.(C) No . \^ /2008 (••ffl' ^J ' "s: Iwif ^f fi r'- APPELLANT DEFENDANT N0.3 .i^S^^ Q.a.^-:^^-^^.--" ^ ^h;^^?t^-,--f^- V"'.,^...-G>'^ c-asA-'" .^^ 1. IFFCO- TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, through the Branch Manager, Iffco- Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd,3rd Floor 345-347, Lalganga Shopping Mal , G.E Road Raipur (CG) RESPONDENTN0.1 CLAIMANT N0. 1 VERSUS 1. Toran Lal Deshukh, S/o Hansraj Deshmukh, Aged about 40 years, Resident of - Village Potiya, Post Borai, Tehsil - Dhamdha , Thana Bori, District—Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENT N0.2 DEFANDANTN0.1 2. Bhushan Singh Thakur, S/o Biselal Thakur, Aged about 26 years , Rseident of - Risali, Post - Risali, Tehsil and District - Durg (C.G.) M^^ RESPONDENT N0.3 DEFANDANT N0.2 3. Biselal Thakur, S/o Hiralal, aged about 60 years, Resident of - 3/A, D/9, hlospital Sector, Dallirajhara, District-Durg(C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 Appeal valued at Rs. 1,38.637/- p3UjS)sns ^niuqsea JB~| uejot oi^yens-tnd pue JSL|}O qoes tft!Ai| ezot/ro ZO SO 'SN uO!}ej?s|B9J| -1.0-9S uo teyi BJB [Bedde sji,'t| •Auedujoo souejnsuf aq}! pspJBMe uesq seu tusiuABd s^ eijt p Bu."y .(G 3tep syi iuo4 Lunu|j -/Z£9'8£'l'syp tunouje ue J3p(i 8iji, yoys joi) Bjna '('O'l'j) leuoi^ippv u,i-1. ^q ZOOZ/WON s^ u.0£ps^ep jepjo 84} tsujeSe ps^ u! pasneo Aegsp 941 pue p8,vio,' •(Bsdde 3141 Buijy ui Ae|9p ^o ssr seq {uefisdde eif? }ey} peysi^es Ae|sp 10 uoipuopuoo joj UOJ)BO! '£'8 Z "ON s}uapuods8j jo^ |9' •t'ON tuepuodssj JQ -tUEOIjddS 3Lft KS^ j9SUn03 Di^lte dUjlt l^ tl$»to]> p>S] J< ILlltlh l.(bl.>[b]tb •seyn.iufsnoAsutS lueiurejo 'iuepioos pres' eqi pn||oo Sfrig/vl-ZO •0'3 pue Suuegq' SBjoAojopiu OA'4 '^.OOZ |o? ssu GU!A!t3 s}oei ^eug ItSUjeBe ^ueuj.ieioa^p jnoASj u; |1» Z005-ZO-90 •3'! uotii^sd yj|e|o JB jad %8 @ ?ssja?ui M}!M BUOJB insjsijM pue AqsjayM (leunqyi funqyi SIUIBIO iuspioov Jop^i jeo uiiBio ui pesssd QQQZ 'iudv E^jip si lesdde }ueisui 9t|i 1-UOISSjLUpB UO PJB84 OSJW Aqejei.! si ieadde aLji Buijy |e s! uo|?BO!|dde su;} .'ajo^sjeqi rleo aq} Suiujeidxe ui pepBeoons i|e | 'uoj?sj9p!suoo enp UQ •isedds eq} Buijy ui |(ide 'I.Q'ON 'V'I uo pjesH a$unoo 'npeA ijsotues uus fesunoo 'IUBQ UIAB^ IJLJS LjBujS lue/inqsBA ULfS tl50 uje l^UE u£)tt.UMBiA (tt^teEjbiL) <*>kh li^ue OOZld^......................................... .ifeUtifi.il^ltUt T—^(s7'o^<'^^v IA/ ' >T>ftii»>y '9ir^y»&'btaih.ih- ie£- itolklB li^llc IhU <b(l.b] lit> Ik^llo XI-HG—78 311^1 W Ri-1 "tPTf S^^t gr>*iiqi TSET •<<i<iid<<, eitilwis, fq<niyy,< f^ACc) No./S/S^ *11*1<11 (b*lTc|i 2008- sn^i'q^? (•yl^»<<«i) ?^<IIWHfel 3D^T 5 The claimant Toran appiication underSection 166 compensation to the tune o| sustained by him in the said a| and insurer ofthe motorcycle N| The appellant/insurancsl statemsnt and denied its liabt ground that the vehicie Is not ir) Company. It was also pleaded| of the vehi'cte would be found the appeilant/lnsurance indemnify the owner ofthe offei| The learned Tribunai on| and on appreciation of the maf| a'A'ard of Rs.1,38,637/'- in faM river, ov/ner and Insurance hoiding the appeIlant/'tnsuFanc^ owner/insured, hence this app< Shri Yashwant Singh ippellant'lnsurance Company the driver of the other motorcy^ said accident. and the'driyer cji wrong!y been he'd as sotely and secondiy driver of the mote|i TDr <ni<it<n<fli "RFI^Tf^ 'fecst <^1^1< ^; sijaiT 3n^?r Lal Deshmukh preferred an f the IVIotor Vehicles Act claiming Rs.4,80,000/- for the injuries Xident against the driver, owner 3.CG07CJ/1079. "i^a/^! i*) i<§0 jii?5U ii.s |ity to pay compensation on the [sured by the appeltanVlnsurance if drivjng iicence of the driver ied or invalid, in that case also would not be liabie to ?ding motorcycle. a ciose scrutinv of the evidence' ^rEal piaced on record, passed an k)ur of the clsimant against the Company jointiy and severaiiy Company iiable to indemni^ the es Fhakur, learned counsel for the sas ralsed two contentions: firstly Ee also contributed to the cause of y the motorcycle in question -has itesponsible for the gaid accident royete in question wa6 not havinc XI-HC—78 an^r ^SFIR? 'aqr sv^s 9f.\v Wldl «>*11«t» 3^ "Ml'^ld'1!, aiti1'M<ie, [s|<'iiy'j,< ^M.A..C^...^tl^^O 8 3n^I-q5RT(Tpfg^I) a valid and effectlve drivins and therefore, the Tribunal h{ upon the appellanVlnsurance I have heard learned col the record and award impugnei) In the written statemenil Company specific piea with rej of the driver of the offending m.] taken and the plea raised is as although the faotum of lnsur| appeilant/lnsurance Company policy but in the written statem^ denied by the appellant/ins certjficate obtained from R.' Shushan Singh (Ex. D-2) was by summoning the record frl Additionsi R.T.O., Bhilal Durg. said v/itness Subhash Saxena he is not aware of the 'fact fha motorcycie was holding driviE Therefore, the ^appeilant/JnsuE discharge its burden which lies fact that the driver of the offer effe'ctlve and valid , drivin< •hwlct'fl") ffllRff^ fS^t tfSre^R ^? aifin siftsl licence at the time of accident is erred in fastening the liability aany. insel for the parties and perused filed by the appellant'lnsurance jard to invalidity of driving iicence |>torcycEe In questiQn has not been vague as if could be. Moreover, ince has been admitted by the subsequently by filing copy of the !nt even factum of insurance was |urance Company; although a F.0. with regard to licence of the same 'Mas not proved |)m off'ice of iicencing suthority |As per para 15 of the award, the kas admifted in his stafement that whether or not the driver of the Sicence to drive motorcycle. ^nce Company .utteriy failed to upon it to p'ead and proye th< png vehjcle was nQt.having a.ny licence at the time of •-\. aSpnt e.i3V -a"^ 'aBeis uoissi 0} siqe!) si 8oue}sqns p PIOAJ 10} yoiiBSuediuoo Aed 01 Aued4ioo iqeii eqi peueiSBj A|)q6u seq |B| JSplSUOO 94} 10 LUB 1 'uoissno^ joj |esunoo psujesi 'jn^eqi qBuic SBL| punojB jsqio ON 'sojo^ }ou| Si pesiej uoi}U3+uoo syi 'pjeSsj sq} io meiA u! 'ejo^ejey^ pue }u^ 9LJ} Aq p9}UBj6 U38q }OU SB4 '8861 '?3V sepiqsA JO}OiA| 9i| o? psiuejS uoissiiujsd Aue jo sou^ syi o} eiqeiiBAS pu s; SLUBS 8i| jo^ [ssunoo peujesi Aq pssiej uc| ou seij }uej!9dde aq? Aq pesrej uo| sij jo gi. s-isd u.! pjeBsj siyi ui leunqui paujsei sy} pue saiyed -SSOJO QW Aq pJOOSJ UO )ii6nojq i^ B^lteliBjlE^ >litb]> |>.SJ jt (l-'Uh l-[l>U>]kltfc i{jpe ^e pessiiusip Aqajeij S! pue ^p Buieq |eedds pus }ueujje|o 4ioo souejnsuifluejjsdds eij} uo |jnqyi psujeei 94} }BIJ} uojuido Ip SAOqS Sljt P /A91A U| •}UB!|8ddB9q} }ue qseA MMS Aq pssiej, ueeq SEL) pue 9ous?sqns p pioAsp |S!U} U! MB! p U0i}j80d p3)US3 isdde 94} o) ieunqui psujeei Ijoissiiujad yons Aipeindsipun jo QZ1. uojpss jspun }| |sqe sqi ui AuBdiuoo eouejnsui |i 'psujsouoo si }ue|j9dde eq^ |}U9}uoo jsi(}0 se JBJ 03 |}U3}uoo sjqi 'sjojsjeyi •pjeM5 qu.ipuy sy} papjooej AjjqSu sei) |s}isoddo p ss9U}im Buiuiiusxs Issqsey Buiqiou OS|B ^usppoB -l?- I^IK uaj»>teii»a (hlibtjbti) ifckh lik^lto OOZl.rt) tk>lht» lb»hlk j'ST^r-w^^^^^/ • >T>141UbJ 'slift^iS 'hWMh^ te£. sAy, e Y •^ tbjhllS^IK. IfclD ibll-y-^b It^lK. 8/.—3H-EC ^