^i ^^ SINGLE BENGH (D 3 BEFORE THE HQN1BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT W.P. N0. BILASPUR SS50 OF 2005. PETITIONER RESPONDENT No. 1 & 2 RESPONDENTS < H [- \^-^' >y>^~. ^ ^' "^\ s:' ^ :-1. Lal Babu, son ofMurtaja Ali, aged 23 years, Occupation Driver ofthe vehicle, 2. Murtaja Ali, son ofLal Mohammed, aged 43 years, Occupation Owner of the vehicle, Both resident of Village Podi, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G). VERSUS :- 1. Ashok, son ofDukliu Ram Verma, Aged about 28 years, Occupation Gram Panchayat Secretary, resident of Village Sukhatal, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh), CLAIMANT 2. Rajesh Kumar Kewlani, son ofThawar Das Kewlani, Occupation Vehicle Owner, resident ofVillage Civil Lines, Katora Talab,Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 3. M:anager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Raipur, Mahaveer Gaushala, Maudhapara, Raipur (C.G.), NON-APPLICANT N0. 3 AND 4 4^. Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Kawaradha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^:^ ^ x XI-HC-22 3^T ^TI^T^T4, ^T?1^^(o, [s|^l^^< ^IN^Ifi ^HT^^.w^^...<i^^ 2005- 30 3TT^?T^T f^ri^)^3n^T ^iw^riw ^ ^.1 e,\. Barve ^ 3TT^T5^[TW;RlN ^••.- ^..,.^my:.r,^ i .•^-B-ZQQ^^^.^ Shri Pankaj Agrawal, couns^! forthe petitioners. Heeird iearned counsel for thje petitioners on admission. By the instant petition undei) the petitioners have questioned th^ cbl^td41^ ^l^dT^te1%1'<f^^K ^3:rf^R'3T|^r Article 227 of the Constitution of india legality of the order dated 21-11-2003 whereby in para-25 of the orde?} iearned Tribunai has held that the petitioners herein have breached therefore, they are responsible f(j the condition of the insurance policy, ^r payment of compensation amount However, in the first instance ^e Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount, and then |they are entitled to recover from the petitioners. As on account of breach dectared responsible for paymerj Insurance Company has been dir^cted to pay the amount and thereafter to recover the amount from the p^titioners, I do not find any infirmity or iijegality in this order. The writ pe| accordingly dismissed. Consequently, M.(W.)P. No| stand disposed of. of policy the petitioners have been it of the compensation amount, the tition is liable to be dismissed and it is 2966/2005 and I.A. No.6658/2005 also Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (<^^fe^)