IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CivilRevisionNoJ ^ /2006 APPLICANT Harbansh Singh S/o- Indarsingh Chawalia, R/o- Baldevbagh, Rajnandgaon Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Owner) VERSUS NONAPPLICANTS 11 ^ shana Bhalekar, S/o- Gajanand Bhalekar, Aged about 43 years Occupation Driver (Truck) R/o- Village Churiya, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & Distt. Rajnandgona (C.G.) (Driver) 2) ^Mohan Bharti, S/o- Ramsai Aged about 40 years, R/o- Vilage Nayakbandha, Thana, Abhanpur District Raipur (C.G.) (Claimant) The Oriental Insurance Conipany Ltd. Branch Kamthi line, Rajnandgaon Through Divisional Managar, Divisionan Office & Kachahari Chowk Raipiir (C.G.) (Insurer) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CFVIL PROCEDURE CODE T XI-HC—78 ^¥?^'^te ^m ^IT^?'^Rt^> MWWl 'W^W^ T^ ^li^ld<LI; ^til<r!^i<o, [®s<ni^i^< . C. K. ^o' /^/6) ^......^.........-......-...................•......^ ^QQ ^ -q^T (<lelf^^) i^TW^ft^^¥r S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Afi[a|rwat nan 05-11-2009 Shri Basant Dewangan, coun^< Shri H.S. Patel, counsei t'or ! Heard on M.(C).P. Noj condonation of delay jn filing the r^ On due consideration an<S appiication 1 am satisfted that th4 expjaining the cause of delay in M.(C),P. is aliowed and the delay hereby condoned. Heard on admissjon. The jnstanf revision is fitedl against the award dated 10-05-3 No.83/2005 by IXth Additional (F.T.C.), Raipur (for short whereunder a total sum of Rs.8,7^ per annum has been awarded in and against the applJcant/ownerl Company, on the ground that the| the truck as a gratuitous passenge^ Facts bnefly stated as under (ei for the applicant. jn-appiJcant No.3. j1757/2006, appljcation for ivjsion. the grounds taRen m the applicant has succeeded In [iiing the revlsjon. Therefore, j^aused in fltlng the revislon is •^qf^fsft^ ^TR^f ^ fe^ <F»i^i< '^^tm^l^T Mdtor •thle by the owner of the vehicle ?005 passed jn Ctaim Case Accident Claims Tribunal Tribunal') whereby and ^8/- along with interest @ 6% [avour of the injured claimant exonerating the insurarsce jinjured person was sjtting in ((" at the time of accjdent. ^.^^'^wf^^ -F XI-HG—78 ^T^'^T'f^lt^ wrsn^i^ff^ "T^r'^TRT^R, ^ti1<4^(o/f^^1l<Hll< C.^< /^o iwmi ^*ii«ft ^200^ >CT^T^^ (^qi^^q) ~0n 13-02-2002 when the c No. MOR 9901 was coming from ^l^id^it^ 'W^T? ^ "fe^ <^^i< ^ affw 3'n^T [aimant was sitting jn the truck ^bhanpur to Raipur, the said truck met with an accident, as a| result of whteh the claimant sustained injuries. The ctaima^t preferred an appllcation claiming Rs.2,50,000/- as comp^nsatlon on account of the injuries sustained in the said accid driver ofthe truck denied the factl jnsurance Company in its writtenl daimant was traveling in fhe passenger and therefore, Insuran< payment. Learned Tribunal on a close snt. The applicant in his writte^ statement aiong with the |jm of acddent. Respondent statement pleaded that the >aid truck as a gratuitous ?e Company is not liable for jscrutiny of the evidence led, materiat avajiable on record and t^e submisslons made by the parties passed the jmpugned aw|ard awarding Rs.8,788/- in favour of the daimant and agains the Insurance Company from jts tic the appellant, exonerating ibility holdjng ciaimant to tee gratuitous passenger hence thls re^ision. Learned counsel appearin^ submit that at the time of accjdent in the tryck but were pedestrians for the appllcant wouid |:he persons were not sitting jand, therefore, the learned Tribunal has wrongiy fastened the| liabilfty upon the applteant owner, exonerating the Insurance Cjompany from its Ijability. + ..,.i^;^^';l- F XI-HC—78 W*l<yl! '»*<|eh "S^ ^WW^, ^ti1<rl,l<o, (OS^11<-i^< .^..c..^...^......^...^ ^I^T'q^^C'i?!^?) ^¥r'^Tf^W .'^m^i^?'^?m ^ ^ Y-v ^ Kvr 1WW:^^3Tlt^ -•^ r^< fil4d i have heard the learned have carefully gone through the In the written statement the driver of the vehicle, factum ^ndfc asked anything in the suggesting the jnjured person a^ accident and, therefore, mere stt pleadlng if disbelieved by the committed any jjiegality in doing s{ It is trite iaw that no amoul jnto without pieading. The Tribunaj regarding the fact that th^ said fruck as gratuitous passeng|ei deservesto be upheld. No other For the foregoing reasons, the revisbn filed by the applican|t. liable to be and is hereby dismiss^d find|ng ^l^^h ^.fe€tTf^R ^^ti^^T^T sounsel for the applicant and r^cord. by the applicant along with |of accident jtseif was denied; cr^ss-examination of appficant a pedestrian at the time of ^tement of the driver without Trifctinal then the Tribunal has nof it of evidence can be looked recorded by the learned claimant was traveting in the er is based on material and Sround has been raised. do not find any substance in Therefore, the revislon js at admission stage. Sd/- N. K, Agarwal Judge t-