L 75ST '^ww<i, 'aT^w'w, Ki<^W^( *<IMdl tbMlcb sn^r.w ft-<i«b wn3iTOi;sf>*<l* WI. 200 sn^r ^RR; (ij«iF-l*s«i) ^mw ^if?ff 3ii^i HI6H COURT W CH M.A. Nd APPELLANT Insurer Na m 1, Ro. Bit. Vs RESPONDENTS (Driver) 1. 2. (Claimant No.l) 3. (Claimant No.2) Mr. Sanjay K Agarwal, Adv. with M None for respondent No.l. Mr. A.K. Shukla, Advocate fop ,ths GRPRJ —TS/246— 2/2007— 50,UOO. ':n<([<'i«illWl?ff ^f fe'st ifai^K ^sTRraaii^r ATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR . 240 of 2005 tional Insurance Company Ltd., fough its Assistont Mana9er, B- |Taha Complex, 2nd Floor, Ring |d No.2, Priyadarshini Nagar, t<|spur, Chhattisgorh. £|angram Singh, S/o Kawalsd, Iged about 40 years, Occupotion; jervice, R/o Villcge; P|nrasurcmpur', ] Police Station: ^amantijnagar, Tehsil; Sur<ypur, istrict; Sur9Uja, Chhattisgarh. ^qjroy, S/o Dw(»'ika, Aged about years, Caste; Bar9aah, >ccupation: Agriculturist, R/o illcge: Romanujna9ar, Police ^tation: Ramonyjnagar, Tehsil: iuriupur, District! Sur9uja, fhhattisgarh. ^arglal, S/o Dharamsai, Aged |bout 35 years; Caste: Bargaah, }ccupation; Agriculturist, R/o illage: fiopipur, Police Station; iamaniyrKgar", Tehsil: Surtypur, istrict: Surguja, ChhattiS90»'h. S. Shorma,Adv. for the appelfant. espondent No.2 <& 3. -•4. . XI-HC—78 SlI^f^liFIR; ^STT •sn^r^)*ri<*> 3wr ^Tsn^r, ^Tny'i<i, fa^K-iy NIKrtl *<41* ••^ 200 3d^?r TH% (ipf^^r) ?siiwafe?t-ai^i ORA (2].5.2007) PefL&hirendpa Mishra,^ Meard. This appeal by the insurer is^ 17.1.200S passed by the4t11 Additio|' Surcypur in Claim Case No.46/200^ sum of Rs.M.OOO/- to the claimont^ Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act'). The only ground r-aised by tt deposit receipt towards premium available on record before the tr vehicle in question was insured by allowed the application for interii Development Officer of the appefl premium frorn the owner for th< 15.5.1998 and the policy has been above deposit receipt. Taking intp consideration thj application under Section 140of thi called for in the oppeal at the ins devoid of substance is liable to be di +wifi41-< iwraf if.tezt t^RSK ^sTRtHsii^r OR&ER direeted againstthe interim cnward dated lal Motor Accident Claims Tribunol, (FTC), whereby learned tr-ibunal has awarded a under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles e appellant fn this oppeal is that except a aid by the owner, there wos no evidence ibunal to reach the conclusion that the I'he appellant. However, the tribunal has award solely on the ground that the mt-Insurance Company had accepted the period commencing from 16.5.1998 to isued by the insurer only on the basis of ^ above finding of the tribunol whereby Act has been allowed, no interference is ijl-ance of the insurer. The appeal bemg i^missed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge