IN THE mOH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURrC.G.) M^.No..^? OF 2006 S'nglt Bench rAPPEAL VALUED AT Ifn2.000 /-) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. .^' APPELANT (NON-APPLICANT N0.3) .^ .*'" • ,...t'"_.^ ^>^' ,rf? ^' ;....••" .^9' ^^' National Insurance Company Limited Through : Its Branch Manager, Branch 'office-Korba, 13 Minu Complex, Main Road, Kosabadi, korba, Distt.- Korba(C.G.). Divisional Officje-, B-l Taha Complex Ring Road no.l, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS /" RESPONDENTS CAPPLICANT) :1.. ^'" Sewan Lal Rathore S/0 Lakhan Lal Rathore , aged ~27years, R/0-P^sid, P.O.-Kirari, P.S.&Tah.- Sakti y Distt•-Janjgir- Champa(C.G.) (NON-APPLICANT ).l) :2. ^" Jagdish Prasad S/O-Amar Sai M^st^war, Aged- 36years, R/0-Balpur, P.S.&Tahsil-Champa, Distt•-Janj gir- Champa(C.G.) (NON-APPLICANT ^0.2) :3. Ashwani Kumar, S/0 Mohan ^ lal Dewangan, aged- 55 years, R/0- Near post- office, Champa, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa(C.G.) TTTOT^'n^ ^JE^T^TroiWT, t?T?l<<-i<i<»,Romyx ^ . ^ . ND. 6 /3 j ^^ 2 ^?I^$TWR»li<^ ?1^TT3TR5T9Rra5' 3H^9T q3W (v^36'ts) V^SQ^ B^TTW ^Frf^T OT^^T S.B. Hon'bie Shri Justice N.K. 15-02-2010 Shri Dashrath Gupta, cout None for the respondents.1 Heard on admission. This appeal fiied by the award dated 08-02-2006 passe(| Ciaims TribunaJ, Sakti, Distt. Bil4 Ciaim Case No.29/2005 v'/hereb^ Rs.12,000/- has been awarded Jnjuries sustalned by. him ir appejlanfclnsurance Company is Learned counsel for the amount awarded by the jearned| since driver of the offending vehjc effective driving licence at the jiabjlity cannot-be fastened upon| payment. 1 have heard learned coun^ So far asthe first quest TribunaE has only awarded Rs.1: injuries sustained by ciajmant In be sajd to be excsssive and the counsel fortne appeiiant is sans in the. same wav, othe? counsel for the appeilant that th< <frl^fo^l»1^l^rtT^"fe^l xf^i^ix ^? 3lKl+l 3VT^5T flaiwal sel for the appellant. isurance Company against the by Additional Motor Accidents .spur (for short ithe Tribunal') jn and whereunder an amount of favour of the clalmant for the the accident hoiding that lable for Its payment. ippeiiant would submit that the 1 Tribynal Is on hlgher and 1e was not having any valid and time of accldent, so aiso the |the Insuraoce Company for ite ^el for the appeliant. |on Is concerned, the fearned ,000/- as compensation for the fche said accident whlch cannot |submissions rnade by iearned lierlt. questlon raised by jearned driver of the offending vehlde ^:.;^^^.^. IC-78 ITOcOT^qT^ ^ocT^TRTIWT, tp-al'd^i®,Rioi^t^x •••••••••••••••••••••••••••<•••••••• 02) v^a^ 3iT^^Tq?rR^ ^ransn^sTa^ra? Kvr 3TF^9T q^P (<3?^36^) B;(?TTW?;Hfta 311^51 was not having vaiid and effecti|i accident is a!so without substanl: raised but the Insurance Comil same by fiting documents/copy etc. in this regard and by adducjj It Is trite iaw that She under Sectjon 149(2) of the IVS^ Act'), Is upon the appellant/!n| counseE for the appellant has piaced or evidence adduced support of its plea taken under; in vlew of above, in the the appea! fiied by the appe!| devoid of substance is liable to| admlssion stage. €hl^llrt^nrlMl^cd'^T'fe^ xRn^ix ^? 3|R|+1 3I1^5T |/e drivlng licence on the date of ;e. Although the piea has been >any has not substantiated the ]pt driving licence/R.T.O. reports ig evidence thereupon. burpen to prove the defence taken |>tor Vehlcies Act (for short 'the ^urance Company—-.j.^arned |aited to point out any material ^y the fnsurance Company in •S^ction149(2)oftheAct e^nsldered opinion of this Court, |anVInsurance Company being |be and is hereby dismissed at Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge