c^@ IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fC) No. '2%/./Q OE-3eG9—. (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs l.89.000 /-) SJnflSS fii ^ APPEAL UNDER_SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. APPELLANT (NON- APPLICANT N0.3) i ^y: sfj' i.\s--" fty-".^'^ v" .^fSKf' ?<flw". ..- ...aA.'-''' ysf-" 1" ,^ •^ <»• RESPONDENTS (APPLICANTNo.l ) (APPLICANTNo.2 ) (APPLICANTNo.3 ) ^. :2,.'z :3. United India Insurance Company Liinited, Through: Its Branch Manager, Branch-Of&ce, Kamthee Line, Rajnandgaon,Distt.-Rajnandgaon (CG) VERSUS Shakun Bai Yadav, Wd/0- Soinan Yadav , aged-SOyears, Kumari Divya Yadav, D/0- LateSoman Yadav,agad-13 years, Leeladhar Yadav, /0-Late Soman Yadav, aged-6 years, Respondent No. 2 & 3 are minor- through-Mother(Respondent No.l- Shakun Bai Yadav, Wd/0- Soinan Yadav) Respondent No 1 to 3 All are R/0- VUl.-Padkibhat, Post- Tekapar, P.S. 8e, Tah. Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (NON-APPLICANT N0.1) (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) J^. Mohanlal Nahta, aged-55 years, S/0 Girdharilal Nahta, R/O-ViU Umradah, P.S. &Tah. - Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.) :5. Devansh Kumar Sahu.aged-32 < Years, S/0-Samliyaram Sahu, ' R/0- Vm. -latabod, P.S. & Tah.- Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.) _^ .</(- HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT (NON-APPLiCANT No.3i RESPONDENTS .A.(C1 N0.37 OF 2010 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Ramu Yadav and others. APPELLANT (NON-APPL1CANT N0.3) RESPONDENTS .A.(C) N0. 39 OF 2010 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Shakun Bai Yadav and others. Present : Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel forthe appellant. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.1988 (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20th day ofJanuary, 2010) Both the above appeals are being disposed of by the common order as the commonquestion of law is involved in both We appeals. 2. These are insurer's appeal filed against the award dated 24-08-2009 passed in Claim Case No.89/2009 and 90/2009 by Additional. Motor Accident Glaims Tribunal, (F.T.C.) Balod, District Durg (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.77,940/- for the injury sustained by respondent No.l/claimant (M.A.(C) No.37/2010) and Rs.1,89,000/- for the death of deceased Soman Yadav (M.A.(C) No.39/2010) has been awarded against the appellant as well as respondents No. ^ ^ss~~~ ^"-a-asai; ^ni'dNuna^S'niic ./"*"' 8L(} 0} ueao si4! aseo ieL|.i. ui siuetu uo .LL"e|3 • , eijt iseiuQo 01 p9MO||e si j9-: isiii. 3^.!-, pue p8}uejB si uoissitujed a 'Bpeiu uaeq seij LUtpjo p LUOUM tSuieSe uosjad e o) jo pajnsu! eq} O^ eiqeiieAB punoj6 eqi uo LUIBIO syi iseiuoo 0} jeunq.u} sq} ^o uoissiiujBd >|89S 0} jejnsui ue G) uedo s.i 11 ssseo t^OnS Ul 'LUIBIO Sy} t89}UOO O) AuedLUoa souejnsui sqt pe3|dLui iou seop jsunqui 9141 'jeLiyn^ 'pue luiefo 941 }S9tuoo }ou seop pejnsui sw JQ pejnsui eq) pue stueLLneid 34) ueeAysq uoisniioo e si ejsw ajsi)M uoiteniis e ui 'jsAeMOH 'stuaiu.: uo pjeme aqi 96ua||ei<o 0} |eadde 10 t4By ou SBL) Auediuoo souejnsui ue 'ps^siies eje pv 8961. io QZl. uoipes ui peyoads luepeoejd suoiiipuoo a4t ss8|un few piey Apeaj|e SABI; a/v\,, japun se ps/uasqo sey ssfr OOS i (ZOOZ) ui payodsj fjatpO pue fBeftioy eyaiiowfti •A i{je6ipuBi{3 •pn •oo Qsuejnsui jeuoffBff p aseo ui jjnoo eaisjdns 841 '9 •toy sijl p (Z)6t7t. uoipss JSpun Auedtuoo syi o» stqeiieAe sje tjoiyM spunojB 94} uo s6ue||e4o to }U3po eq} 01 patituii sq p|noM lesdde ^o e^oos ey} pue epeiu usaq sey IUIBIO 941 tuoyM isuieBe uosjsd syt 01 siqeiieAe eje yoiym spunojfi ayi ||e uo tusiedLUOo }ou si Auediuoo aouejnsu) sij} Aq pejjs^sjd |esdde 910 'pv syi ^o OZ l. uoipsg jepun uoissiiujad Buiu.ietqo tno4tiM )eL|} Mei 9»u} sj )t s •speiu ueaq seq uijep eyi UIOVM isuieBe uosjed syi o} siqeijBAe eje }eyt spunojB ayi ;o Aue uo eseo 3L|t tseiuoo o}. '(.pv 94}, yoqs joj) pv seioiyeA JO}0|/\| syi ^o QZ l uoipsg jspun uoissiujjed Aue psuieiqo }ou sei) iue||8dde sui 'Afpsindsipun {7 •spise }9S aq o) SSAJSSBP pjews eu} 'sjopjeyi 'iuepiooe ayi ui p9A|OAUi iou seM epiysA Guipue^o 9t<! se yontuseui £5 ^ 'ON StU8puod99j isuieBe se |(aM se }ue||sdde eui isuieBe siueujieio 94} o» uoBesueduioo 6utpJeA^e U! PSJJS seij |eunqui psujeei 9Li} }Bt(} s)iiuqns )ue||9dde a!..j1 jo^ issunoo p^UJE^^ 'g •)U9LuAed |entoe s}i ii-i) uoueoiidde ai^} ,o etep s^'t .uoj^ 'j-'nuue jad %g @ )sajs)ui I;}IM 6uo|e f.'sz: 'ON sjuapuodssj .fff"'- i~3K..-.f--' ..*. insurer to file ^h appeal against an award on merits, jf aggrieved. In any case where an application for permission is erroneously rejected the insurer can challenge only that part of the order while fiiing appeal on grounds specified in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act. But such application for. permission has to be bona fide and filed at the stage when the insured is required to lead his evidence. So far as obtaming compensation by fraud by the claimant is cohcerned, it is no longer res integra that fraud vitiates the entjre proceeding and in such cases it is open toaniinsyrertoapply to the Tribunal for reCtificaiiono^awarcl." 7. By applying above referred proRpsitjian^of law in the facts and circum^tartees of thepresent G^ie,jtis crystalidear that the appeal has not been preferred by the appellant challenging the award on the grounds which are available to it under Section 149(2) of the Act and, therefore, the appeal being filed on the grounds available to the person againstwhom the claim has been made without obtaininganypermissionunderSection 170ofthe Act, ES not maintainable. \ Kvr 8. In view of above. the appeals being not maintainable are liable to be and are hereby dismissed at admissfon stage. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge _^