^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSQARH: 81LASPUR SingleBench: Hon'ble Shri Dillp teosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appellant Respondents M.A.C.No. 1238 of 2007 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ComfMny Limited, Firet Floor, Rachna Trade Estate N.N.D.T. Crossing Ptot No.64, Law Cotlege Road Poona (Maharashtra) Through Branch Manager, At present Situated at Vanijya Bawan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur (CG) (NonApplicant No.3) Versus 1. Udal Das,S/o Bansht Das, ^ed about26 yeare 2. Smt Urmila Bai, W/o Udat Das, aged about25years Both R/o Vitlage Barbaspur, Thana & Tahsil-Kawardha, District KabinBiam (CG) At present Betiakapa, Thana & Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (CG) (Claimants) 3. Palan Das, S/o Kawal Das Bharti Satnami, aged about 24 yeare, Tractor No.CG.08 C7257 and Trolley No.CGOB C 7258 (Drtver) 4. Hukumchand, S/o Tutaram Mahilar® aged about 45 years, Tractor No.CG 08 C 7257 and Troltey No. CG 08 C 7258 (Owner) Both R/o Viltage Qiandalpur, Post Ramhepur, P.S. & Tahsil Kawardha District Kabifldham (CG) Menwrandum of aopeal under SecUon 173 of the Motor Vehtetes Act 1W8 - ~ Present: Shri 8.S. Rajput, counsel for the appellant None appears for respondents No.1 &2 though served. Shri Ajit Sirgh, counsel for respondents No.3&4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 05.09.2008) Heard finatly. This is an appeal bythe insurer. (2) The appellant is aggrieved by the awarddated 3008/2007 passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accjdents Claims Tribunal (FTC), MungeU, Biiaspur (CG) (heneeforth the Tribunal') in claims case No.52/2007, whereby in a death case, compensatton of Rs.1,80,000/- was awarded to the clalmante^, ..^ff-^&i^SS, ^.--<^< Priya (3) Brieffacts are that on 03.05.2M6, aiupesh, a ohild aged 3 years was crushed underneath the truck bearing No.CG-08 7257 and a trolley attached to it bearing No. OG-08 7258 (henceforth the tractor and troltey) driven by the respondent No.3, owned by respondent No.4 and insured by the appeHant. These facts are not disputed in this appeal. (4) Leamed counsel for the appellant argued that in view of the flndir^ recorded by the Tribunal that tlie appellanyinsurer had satlsfactonly proved its defence under Sedion 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it ought not to have passed an order of 'pay and recover' against the appellartflnsurer. (5) On the other hand, learned counsel fbr the respondents No.3 & 4 argued in support ofthe impugned award. (6) Before the Tribunal, the appeltant/insurar took the defence that tha driver of the tractor and trolley did not possess a valid and efiective driving licence. (7) The Tribunal recorded a findn^ in para 15 of th9 award that the respondent No.3/driver did not possess any licence on the date of awdent. The Tribunal hekl that the insurer had satisfactorily proved bregKh of po\w/ condition. While awarding eompensation of Rs.1,80.000/-, the Tribunal j passed an order of 'pay and recover' against the appellantflnsurer. (8) Having conskjered the rival submissions, 1 am of the considered opinion that this appeat has no merit. In view of the admitted facts and the finding recordecf by the Tribunal that the driver of the tractor and trolley did not possess any licence, the Tribunal rightly recorded a findir^ that the insurer had satisfactorily proved the defence of breach of policy oondition taken by the insurer under Section 1 49 (2) of the Motor Vehicl^ Act. In view of the fact that the deceased was a third party and the appellant/insurer was statutorily liable to pay oompensation, the Tribunal has, in my considered opinion, rightly passed an order of 'pay and recover' against the appellant/insurer as held by this Courtih United India Inajrance Ccimpany Limited. Bi/asour Vs. KunibitKiri Mi^ira andoffiers 2008 L.T. (CG) 91. (9) In the result, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismlssed. Sd/- \ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh r Judge