Ar- IN THE aiGH COCRT OF JUDJCATURE AT BHASPTOyC.G.^ M.A.(C)No..4^.i.. OF20( (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs3.75.9UQA.Il 118?ls?BB'tenri 'sw APPEAL UNDER SECTION173 OF THE MOTORVEmCLES ACT. 1988. APPELLANT ^NON-APPLIGANT N0.2) Respohdents ^ (NON-APPLICANT ^.1) Versus 1. 2 .^ \®...t-<\\s.' ^^y.. ...-'•"^^^.•••••"' >..-^^^'" ^Opited India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh *C.G.) Sainmelal S/o. Jethuram Lathore, aged about 32 years,R/o. Purani Basti Kharsiya, P.S. & Tah. Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Sanjay Kumar. @ Ajay Lahare S/o Dhanuram Lahre, aged 'about ;20 years, R/o. Nandourkala,. P.S. & Tah. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 'SN .^ HON'BLE MR. i.M.QUDDi ,E MK. Sammelal & another \- ivir.-uasnrain uupra, navocaieTonne appeuani. iVir. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate Tor respondent No.1. a"S^ —-^-B ^J ly 1. i he appeilant-lnsurance Company nas nied this miscellaneous appeai againsi rhe impugned avfard dated 12.12.2006 passed by the teamed Additionai Motor Accident Claims Ciaims Tribunal') (CU) ( l i.n i/i ;e No.4: nerem, panv i '' '^i if iiitv 2. Facts ofthecase, in brief, are that on 14.4.2005 the claimant/respondent No.1 ig backio Kharsiya aiongwith his brother-in-Iaw Kailash Rahtore aftei lasing a cow. At about 7.00 p.m. when t'ney reached near a in Viliage uevaghata, the respondent No.2, wiio Vi/as dnving nis rasn and negiigent manner, dasned sussained gnevous iniunes on vanous application seeKing compensation to tne disabilrty sustained by hm in tne said a< he is unable to hear & see properiy body. ine ciai tune of Rs.15,95,056/- for permanent dent stating that attertne said acciaent aven ne cannot lin weignt trom nis leir V6 eviaence Drou! ciaimants and b'"'o p.a. recora by in i the appelianl ine.cf award. iiave nearct iearned counsel uiaims Inbunal as also the impugni On perusal of the record, \we found that driver of the o^mer of the $aid vehicie; Vtias not having valid and ing tne issues Tramed by it and also tne ies, aitowed tne claim appiication OT the 1 of Rs.3,75.900/- aiong wth interest @ in with ihe liabilitv of payir irties and oe venicle, sttective NN^r stated in d any dr ving iice having icials OT inving h!s the iccident to dnve tns said ven.'cte tnougn ne has statement that he Vt<as having driving licence but he neither producs Jicence or photocopy thereof nor could give the number of ihe On tlie contrary, ne had given in wrmng to the poiice tnat ne was driving licence. Further, on a search being made by the insurance Company, it is found that learners' driving licence wheeler motorcycie wth gear and LMV was oniy issued to t'ne vehicte on 03.06.2005 i.e. after two months from the dat®of accident, and the same was valtd tor a penod ot six montns only. ihus, it is cle; learning dnving iicence was issuecl on U3.oe.2UU5, me dnver 01 venicle couid not have a Tull fiedged dnving iicence on the date 14.4.:<'UU&. cven otnsr'wise, tne Insurance Company nas also aot success in getting evidence ot the oTncials OT tne K 10 concerned in tnat regard. OT ine above, we are OT ine opinion tnat tnat ttie apDellant-tn; (,/ompany could not have been ne'd iiable to pay compensation and should have been exonerated by the Claims Tribunal. ' 7. On the basis ofabove analysis, we ailowthis appeai, set aslde the award dated l^.l2.AUUo passed bythe Inbunalin Ulasm Case NOAZ/'ZUUS) so ?ar as it relates to fasienlng of iiabiiity on the appellani-lnsurance ComDany and hold that the appeliant-lnsurance Uompany is not nable to pay compensation to the respondent NO.T hereln involved in Ehe impugned award and the sarrie shali be paid bythe owier ofvehicle in question i.e. respondent No.2 herein. In case any amount deposited by the appeilant-lnsurance uompany has been wlthdra'Mi by ine respondens No.1 herein, it wil oe open Tor it to recover ihe sams owner ofvehicle. However, ifthe amount, so deposited, has noi been so far, the insurance Company shaii be ailowed to withdraw the same. tne conditions and Tindmgs ot tne impugned award are nereby conflrmi nere&y clarmecf tnat the respondent N0.1 nerein is tree to execute tr against the Wi'ner ofvehicte i.e. respondent No.2. No order as to cost; iS&U ed. It is rwarc t-.eitins" 3;3hcirL/ 'SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge