c^- -t INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ,. ..L^ M.A.(C) No. ..l.:^..^OF 2008 (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs.55,600/-) APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. APPELANT JNON- APPLICANT ^N0.3) ^^-"^^ ^^^ ,0'^" ::^^ RESPONDENTS .-fAPPLICANT) (NON- APPLICANT ^o-.l) ^'United India Insurance Company Liraited, Through: Its Branch Manager, Branch- Office, ,R.B.Trades, Ist Floor, Stadium Road, T.P.Nagar Korba, Tah.& Distt.-Korba, (CG). VERSUS Shiv Kumar, S/0- Dev Kumar, aged-49 years, R/O-Qr. No.M/21/1 Gheddeva, Tah. Kalghora, Distt.-Korba (CG). Bharat, S/0- Rajsai Yadav, aged about-34years, R/0- ViUage- Dangniya, Tah.- Katghora, Distt.-Korba (CG). (NO^N-APPLICANT g^: fo.2) Mahavir F'rasad, S/0- Puniram, R/0- No.l Sendaridafai, Surakachhar, Police Station- Bankimongra, Tah.-Katghora, Distt.- Korba (CG)(owner). ^^ ' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISiON BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ. M.A. Fd No. 1523/2008 Non-applicant No, 3 Respondents United India Insurance Company Limited, Korba (CG) Shiv Kumar and others Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellanVinsuranoe company. None for the respondents, though served. th Per I.M. Quddusl. J; 1. List is being revised. However, no one appears on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, we proceed to decide this appea! ex-parte. 2. This appea! has been filed by the appeliant/insurance company against the av/ard ofthe Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, Distt. Korba (in short "the Tribunal"), dated 11.7.2008 passed in Clalm Case No.254/07, insofar as it has fastened ths liability upon it to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. Brief faets of the case are that on 3.12.2003 in the afternoon, Shiv Kumar was going to the office of Project No.04, SECL, Bank'! Khadan, P-ankha Ghar in connection wifh his duiies and when he reached near Pankha Ghar-2, at that time respondent No.2 'was coming frorn opposite direction in his motorcycie bearing registration No. CG 12A/'3160 (hereinafter referred to as "the offendin^ motorcycle") in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed Shiv Kumar, as a resuft of which Shlv Kumar sustained grievous injurses and permanent disablffty was caused to him. 4. At the time of accident, injured Shiv Kumar vvas 45 years oid, he working in SECL and getting a sa'ary of Rs.12,500/- per month. With the averments, he filed a c!aim petition under Section I— r s^ 166 ofthe Motor Vehictes Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") before the Tribuna! for a compensation of Rs.5,65,000/- un-der various neaos. 5. Heard iearned counsel for the appeilant, perused the lower Court record (LCR$ as a!so the irnpugned award. S. Learned counsei for the appeliant/insurance cornpany has submitted that the driver ofthe offending motorcycie was not having a and effective driving iicence on the date of accident. However, the Tribunai despife this fact has fastened the liabitlty upon the appelfant/'insurance company to pay compensation to the cf-aimanf. I'O 7. Frorn perusa! of the impugned award, we have found that the Tribunat had framed an issue (Issue No.5), as to whether driver of the offendlng motorcyc.ie was not having a driving iicence, and answered the issue in the negative, rneaning thereby that the driver of the offending motorcycle was having a driving licence on the dat^ of accident to drive the motorcycle. But from perusai of the record, that there is no licence on record. Therefore, there was ion for the appe!!ant/insurance company to verify the above fact. However, evidence has by the insuranra company regarding non-production of drivlng licence and ateo ths jolice could not seize any dr'ying licence' and in fact, the driver under Section 3/181 of fhe Act, 1988. !n circumstances, !we are of th° opinion that the appeliant/insurance company was to be exonerated from its liability. 8. !n the resu't, the is allowed. The impugned so far as it the upon the appeilant/insurance company to pay th° compensation, is hereby set The appellant/insurance company is from its fiability. !t wiil be open for the to recover the amounf of compensatton from the owner. 9. However, we not considered fhe question of quantum in this order. 't wi.'l be open for the owner to raise the question of quantum, ifso 10. The amount, if any, by the appellant/insurance company be refunded to it and if the same has already been dist the claimant, the appeilant/insurance company shall realizethe ; same from the owner. 11. l\io order as to costs. 12. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge G.Minhajjutiin Judge t3r