IN E I CW3? ’l‘i‘i HGH OF $E€ATTIS§APJFI M . . A ‘ ' APP FI‘T mT- ORIGINAL WPL NO. 2. (wner of Motor) ccl AP BuASpuR. \ w r ,, 2002. ‘ ‘ y/UV" 4 /// . ! U/ Ramsane‘ni Yadav son of \X N‘RRQJW Caste Yadav’, agec‘x about 5O years, resicEent of Qr.No. 6/15 Irrigation Colony,Rampur Korba, Tab. am} Distt. REa qq DEN s. v T ORTaTr CLAIM ENT . V/ %"V “Him étra1 Eadsenq son OJ. €63 ram Dadsena, aged aoout 4O yeéfs, Caste Jadsena. 2. Smt Malt; Dadsena, vufe 01. Net;.am d€ena. ’ 3. _/x)<2.; Lata d/o Netram Dadsena. aged about 15 years. * 5 4 //f<u, mama q/o Netram Dadsena, ‘ aged about 12 years. 3 5. “/Ku kalta Q/o Netram Dadsena, ageo about 9 years. Respondent no. 3 to 5 xepresenti ung through respondent no. l being father of the minor respondent s. Bil aspuf, MLP, m All resioents of irrigation Colony, Qrmo. A375, Ranpur , Korba, Tah am Distt. KO}ha,M P § § / x/r § OREGINAL NmjiéP'EIczm § N0. 1 ma 3.(Driver and' K Insurm$ Co.) I I i 3 6 /§ayalgrri s/o Qakar Smgh Goswanu, aged abom: 23 years; resident of Rampur Colony, Labour Iigt,Tah. and oisstt. Koma. ( ‘ 5 7&he National Insuranoe Q31 Ltd. ,Mmu Complex, Kosabadi,Korba. Distt. Kooa a, M.F. (insurer. L P _..— 2..-- D. NGN/ IvgvT D ye J AL $ ~“N --~2._.. 7 / / 3 OF MOI'GR VEIICLE ACT. 17 L $his; A M ,,,r,r\g:‘ ,W Misci APPEAL UNDER swmq 17 MISC; APPEAI; VALUaD OF Rs. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR DB: HON’BLE LM. QUDDUSI & HON’BLE N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ MISC. APPEAL No. 110 OF 2002 § MPELLANTS l 1 I Ramsanehi Yadav 1 ’ Vs. I RESPONDENTs I l Netram Dadsena and others l APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT APPEARANCE: Mr. Malay Bhadun' 8n Mr. Pravin’Tulsyan, counsel for the appellant. (Vb Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal and Mr. Saurabh Shanna, counsel for respondent no.7 ORDER (ORAL) (06.09.2010) Per LM. QUDDUSI, J This appeal has been med by the ownsr against the award dated 03.12.2001 passed by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, in Claim Case No.69 of 1998 whereby the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged quantum of the award as also exoneration of the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the vehicle has no valid driving licence. The contention of the appellant is that the insurance company has not examined any witness nor the policy was exhibited on record and only on the basis of application under Order 1 1 rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Tribunal has drawn inference that the driver was not having valid and ed‘ective driving licence. In this view of the above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for disposal of the claim anesh. The parties shall be allowed to adduce additional evidence and after giving opportunity of hearing the Tribunal shall take a nesh decision as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal concerned on 04‘h of October, 2010. We direct accordingly. The records of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith. w“ ’ T #Tls, .’ sdl- I.M.Quddusi Judge I Sal- Ti N. K.Agaiwal Judge