;H COURT OF CHHATTISSARH AT BILA^UR B;aui!isss Ijl'B'liiESaiEl Ml C(»A :Hon'bte Shri S..R.Nayak. C'hief Justice & Appellant Mon-ApDllcant No.3 Resoondent No.l (Applicant No.l) Respondent no.2 ResoondentNo.3 (Applicanf No.3) ftespondent No.4 Respond&it No.5 (Non-Applicant No.l) RespondentNo.6 (Non-Appiicant No.2) Unlted India Insurance CompeuTy' Limi+ec Through : Its Divisiona! Manager - t>ivisional Office - AAain Road Korbn, Distr-ct Korba (C.6.) I. Anita W/o Late Rarn Chandra, ated 22 2. Kusum, D/o Late Ramchcsndra, aged 5 month (Through ©uardian-ad-litem-Mother-Anita Resp. 3. Kalia Ram, S/o Bechuram, aged 50 years. 4. Putari, W/o. kaliaram, aged 45 years. Respondent No.l To 4 all are resident of Viitage Jori, P.S. Dhourpur, Distric-t Surguja. Ambikapur (C.6.) 5. Jagdish Prasad, 5/o Shri Bukhan 5ahu, aged 45 years. 6. Suraja ©SjraJ Kumar, S/o Somar Sai, aged 28 years, Respondent No.5 <& 6 are resident of Villuge Jora, P.S. EAarpur, C>istrict Surguja, Ambikqsur (C.6.) Siri bashrath Gupta, Counsel for the appellant. Snri Mionoj hVishra, Counsel for the resppndents No.l to ' Shri Bhupendra Singh, Counse! for the respondents No.5 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 3.5.2006) 2-- Tne following ora! order of the Court was passed by S. R. T .*£. This qipeal preferred by the Insurance-Company is directed ayo.inst tha award dated 26.2.2004 passed by ths 1 Aciditiona! Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short the M.A.C.T.) in Ciaim Co.se No.37/2003. By' the impugned award, the M.A.C.T. has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,28,000/- wi'rti interest at the rate of 9% pe" annum from the date of claim petitlon till payment, to the r'espondents-claimants. 2. The only contention urged before us by the iearned standins counsel for the Insurance-Compcny is that the deceased Ram Chandra was travelling in -rtie tractor troliey as a passengsr for fair vriien accident took place, and -Hierefore, 1+ie M.A.C.T. ought not to have fastened the liability to pay compensation on the Insurance-Company fo" -the breach of ter-ms and condi+ions of tiie insurance policy. It is true that 1+iat plea was raised in the writS-en statement fjled by the Insurance-Company before the M..4.C.T. Having taken that p!ea, it VMS 1+ie onus of the Insurance-Compaiy to adduce evidence to substantiate that pleo,. The Insurance-Company, to substantiate that plea, examined Siri Anup Mehta, a private inves+igator appointed by the Insurance Compcmy, as N.A.W.i. We have perused his evidence. It is true that, in his evidence, it is stated that in the investiqation conducted by him after the accident, he came to know that the deceased Ram Chandra was travelling as s passenger for fair in the tractor'trolley at the time of accident. Howzver, !n his cross- examination it was suggested to him by ttie learned counsel for the clalmants that his above version was not true. 3. In the course of argument, learned counsel for the Insurance- Company wouid dr.aw our attention to what is elicited in the cross- ll!t:i!'-11;:118(1;t!g examination of Kayilaram A.W.2. in paragraph 6 of the evidence, A.W.2 is one of tiie claimants and father of the deceased Rara Chondra. Paragraph6 of the deposition contains contradictory statements. In 1+se firfft part of it, A.W.2 haiS categorically stated that the deceased-Rem Chandra was not a member of the marriage party' of one Sukhdeo. However, in the second part of it, 't is elicited that the deceased was travelling as member of the m<srriage part)' in the tractor 'A+iich met with accident. The two statements are contrary to each other. If that part of the evidence is eschewed, •rfiere is absolutely no independent evidence adduced by the Insurance Company to substantiate plea that tiie deceased vm.s travelling in thi vehicle involved in the accident as a passenger for fair. It is also r'elevant to note that the owner of the tractor-Jagdish Prosad was exaroined as N.A.W.i. He, in his evtdencs In paragraph-7, has categoricaity stated that the tractor was not being used to carry tiie marriage party of Sukhdeo for fair. The evidence of the owner of the vehicle fu!!y supports the evidence of A.W.2 glven in examination-in- chief. Having regard to the state of evidence on record, It cannot be said that the yiew taken by the M.A.C.T. is not one of the plausible views. 4. In tlie result, the appea! is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge