HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc.AgQeal No.756 of 2005 CORMA: Hon’b!2 Shri SR. Nnyuk, CJ & Hon'bie Shri Dilip Raosaheh Deshmukh, J. Appellanf Insurer Uni'red India Insurance Company Limi‘red fhrough Branch Office, Opposife Gopi Talkies, Raigarh (C.6.) Versus 1. Sm’r. Hilda Khaikho, widow of iafe Keiman Xaixo aiius Claimanf Xalxo, aged 3O years, occupa‘iion-House wife. Ku. Saroj Khaikhog'd/o iafe Keiman Xaixo aiias Ciaimanf Xalxo, aged 12 years. (Minor) Ku. Aipana Khalkho, d/o la‘re Keiman Xaixo aiias Ciaiman’r Xulxo, aged 10 years. (Minor). wt 4. Sachin Khalkho, s/oLKelman Xalxo alias Claimani Xaixo, aged 4 years. (Minor) (Respondeni's no.2 To 4 minor Through fheir natural guardian mo'rher Sm'l‘. Hilda Xalxo widow of Kelman Xaixo)‘ 5. Nicholas Khalkho, s/o Maii'hra Xalxo, aged 65 years. (All r/o Cheli'rang‘roli, police sfa’rion and disfricf Jashpur Nagar (6.6.) 6. Nazarious Kerke'l'i‘a s/o Subsi'ryus Kerke'Ha, aged 33 years, occupafion-Driver, r/o Tekul, police sfafion & disfricf Jashpur Nagar (CG) 7. Baldea Uraon s/o Chhedi Uracn, aged 55 years, occupa‘l’ionu Driver, presen‘rly r/o Karbala Road, Jashpur Nagar, r/o Village~l<aronda (Li'rEfoli) Khora, Disfricf Eumla (Jharkhand) Branch Manager, Adivasi Viffa Vikas Nigam, Raiqarh (CE). Respondents': Ciaimanfs DRIVER DRIVER OWNER Shri Abhishek Sinha, Counsei for fhe appenanf. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 2nd January 2006) The fcliowing oral order of The Cour? was passed by S.R.NAVAK, CJ. 1. In fhis appeal preferred by The Insurance Company, The correcfness of The impugned award is assai!ed only on The ground ThaT The deceased was Travelling in The moTor vehicle involved in The accidenT, as a passenger, in breach of The condiTions of The insurance policy, and Therefore, ThaT is a valid ground for The appellanT— Insurance Company To deny The liabiliTy To pay compensaTion in Terms of The clause (a) (i) (a) of sub—secTion (2) of SecTion 149 of The MoTor Vehicles ACT, 1988 (for shorT 'The AcT’). BoTh in Terms of pleading as well as proof, The above plea raised by The learned counsel for The Insurance Company cannoT be susTained. In The firsT place, The plea Taken in ThaT regard as reflecTed in The wriTTen sTaTemenT filed before The MoTor AccidenTs Claims Tribunal (MALT) is as vague as iT could be. Secondly, There is absoluTely no maTerial evidence adduced by The Insurance Company To esTablish The facT ThaT The deceased was Travelling in The moTor vehicle involved in The accidenT as a passenger for hire or reward. In oTher words, The essenTial condiTion To aTTracT The provisions of clause (a) (i) (a) of sub-secTion (2) of SecTion 149 of The AcT, 1988 is esTablished. No oTher poinT was urged before us To confesT The correcTness of impugned award. 2. The appeal is, Therefore, dismissed, however, wiTh no cosTs. i Sm- ‘l Dilip» RaosahelxDeshmukh li \ Judge . l Anjani Priya r l v9