Bi!;i -/ o- ^ ^l ^' BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT rf<««s«?*"s.tia>s: fc'"i l 'i-;!S!jy?<t aWsWe M.A. N0. APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT N0. 3 RESPONDENTS OF 2004. ^ ,iy |i|!i:; :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G) VERSUS :-^1, Smt. Savitri,wife ofLate Naththu, / aged about 50 years, ^. Santosh, son of Late Naththu, aged about 26 years, j^—^.'Jitendra,son of Late Naththu, aged > ..' about 18years, .*^ V fc^ T. ' ^^^..Q^- Dhirat (Dhiraj is fhe correct name), son & vi..':<^i<::> .-•"*' A^^\ 2< ^.\ ** ^^ ,^-^y ^y ofLate Naththu, aged about 33 years, 5. .Ariita, daughter of Late Naththu, aged about 23 years, All resident of Kapoor Singh Dafai, Chirmiri, Police Station Chirmiri, Tahsil Maaendragarh, District Korea (Chhattisgarh), CLAIMANTS 6. Bhagirathi, son of Punit Ram Gond, aged about 23 years, resident of Railway Station, Haldibadi, Chirmiri, TahsU Manendragarn, Disto-ict Korea (Gbhatdsgarh), 7. Ex. Captam Ramsingh, son of TorMia Singh, aged about 50 years, resident|of Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur, District BUaspiu- (Chhattisgarh), fhrough Amat Automobiles, Manendragarh, District Korea (Chhatdsgarh). NON-APPLIC^NTS N0.1 ANU2. ^&iNU 'i. r i^ •Kt' ^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 0_FMQTORVEHICLES ACT 1988 11»> l^ 'l:.l:.iis.s2a;| | i:li!li!l.. <1^//^- i";!te»a»R^<r HLGILCO^RT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR M. A. No. 1009 of 2004 Appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Respondents Smt. Savitri 8s others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES_ACT,_ 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi & Hoiyble Shri Justice G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shn'H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Aganval, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company. Shri P. P. Sahu, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 5/Claimants. None for the respondents No. 6 8s 7/Driver and Owner, though the respondent No.7/owner is served. ORDERJQrall ( Passed on this 29th day of September, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the impugned award dated 24.7.2004, passed by the Addidonal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, Koriya in Claim Case No. 42/2002, challenging the liability to pay the amount of compensation, fixed by the Claims Tribunal upon it. 2. The list is being revised. No one is present for the respondents No. 6. and 7, despite service of notice upon the respondent No.7/owner. Therefore, while dispensing with the service upon the respondent No.6/Driver we have proceeded ex-parte against the respondent No.7/0wner. 3. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 16.7.2002 at about 11.30 a.m. the deceased Natthu was doing the work of cleaning in Bartunga Colliery. At that time, due to rash and negligent driving ofthe non-applieant No.l, the Truck, bearing registration No. M.P. 27-B/3599, ran over Natthu, while the Truck was on back gear. As a result of this accident Natthu died on the spot. At the relevant time the non-appiicant No.2 was the owner of the offending vehicle -Truck and it was insured with the present appellant. 4. The claimants, being legal heirs/dependents of deceased Natthu filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 8,26,000/- under various heads. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record passed the impugned award, directing the non-applicants to pay a total sum of Rs. 6,83,200/- as coinpensation along with interest at fhe rate of 15% per annum to the applicants No. 1,3 and 5, holding the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the lower Court record as well as the record of the criminal case and found that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident as the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Bilaspur, namely Shri Ram Singh Jagat S/o Late Umend Singh has deposed to the effect that the driving licence was a forged one. Therefore, in our opinion the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability to pay compensation upon the Insurance Company as there was clear breach of the conditions of the Insurance Policy. In such a situation the Insurance Corapany should not have been held liable. •ii|f'~[!(i| L£ 7. In view of the foregoing, we allow this appeal and exonerate the Insurance Company from any liability to pay the amount of compensation. It will be open for the claimants to realize the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. No order as to costs. 8. It is made clear that we have not considered the quantum part of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 9. If any amount has been paid to the claimants by the Insurance Company it would be open for it to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge '4 fe Thakur '^ fcfil UlII h 1 \ M-1 -A j)