r rC—78 'ysr WHi<<i<n^, ^tii^<i<o, f®ldt-ylj,< *(11<r(l CT)*lieb TI^ 200 3TT^?T TT5R)' (^r^r^) ^T^T^lf^TTSF ?T8TT ^n^T^RT^ ^rrw ^rf^r 37T^r SIN6LE BENCH: HON'BLE M.<4. [C APPELLANTS Non-apojicant No.l<&2 Vs RESPONbENTS ClaimonTs & non- applicQnt no.3 1. Tulsi ©onc 2. Prad Ranu Both of Urga, &i 1. Agahan Singh. 2. Itwor Sin9h. Both of Puchheli, P.^ 3. The Njational throigh) 25.06.2008 Mr. Kamat Pandey, Advocat<| Heard on admission, ddted This appeal by the owner aji ajrected against the award No.38/07 whercby the Jearned Janjgir Champa (C©)has allow^d respondent No.l & 2 herein Gind with interest @ 9% per annum <n<fli ^i^<nt* "^ f^^i <p3[^H '^'^H3?T?^T JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHR^ No. 724/2008 i|tcun cge 35 yews son of Birjhuram sep Kashyap cge 35 years son of ^anehi Kashyap. jthem resident of Saragbundiya, P.5. i^tt. (torba (C.e.) jSiryh age 40 years son of Manglu ingh age 32 years son of Mangju ithem C<Kte-Kanwar, resident of i. Sacragaon, Distt. Janj^ir-Chctmpa Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Mancger Korba, Ds'stt. Korba for the appellonts. \A id the driver of the offending vehjcle is 12,12.2007 passed in CIaim Case IChjef Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. the cbim petition of the claimants/ bwarded a compensation of Rs.80,000/- l-o the daimants towards the death of <? F.HC—78 ^TT^T '5FT f<^ich TT^T ^TT^T $n^icr> '7Sf r<MI<4Kn'4, «l\ll-(-l<t<o, [®l<?1l'Hll,< *iW^{ 5t»*1(Ch -^ 200 ^TS^ 1ET5RF ( y^^) FRTTW ^rftcT 37T^T 07(13 wcfs — ^ Mangaj Singh, father of the clai 5.30 p.m, as a result of motor registration number C^12-ZD-( driven by appeliant No<l herein The claimants in the cl fts.6,82,000/- as compensation wj caused by bus belonging to the negligently by appellcuit No.l as sustained grievous injuries, he on the next day, Deceased was Rs.6.000/- per month and the claimants have claimed a sum treatment; Rs.4,32,000/- towarl loss of love & affection; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of expenses oind thus a totat elaim o-j The appelloints ian their rep claim petition and further insured for the relevant perio^i respondent No.S-insurance com| Rs.40.C}00 <^i^I<y!<fli 'RTH^if ^* 'f^1^ <Pn^« ^3tfm37?^T ihants, who died on 20.4,2007 at about ^iccident involving the MarshaJI bearing i, owned by Gppellant No.2 herein and at|the relevant time. l^iim petition have claimed a sum of jth the averments that the accident was op|)ellant No.2, which was driven rashly and result of which deceased Manga! Singh admitted in the hospital where he died parpenter by profession, he was earning ^laimants were dependent on him. Jhe |>f Rs.7,000/- towards expenditure on |s loss of income; Rs.25.000/- towards towards loss of agriculturaj income; 4state <& Rs.25.000/- towards funeral Rs.6.82,000/- has been cJdmed. |y have denied the averments made in the that the vehjcle in question was with the respondent No,3. VVhereas, )any in its reply submitted that the subntitl-ed '"^. -HC—78 '3^ ^l'^ld'4, yiti1<H4l<o, f®l<ni-Hlj,< HWVM W»*11<»» -^ 200 3TT^?T ^[^K ( ^clf^<^) ^ni^T ^RT f^'ii°h ^T^T 3TT^T Sft^W ^fTW^f^T^TT^T -y vehicle in question was registered effective driving Jicense. '^"Prf^ri^ 'RTR^f ^f fe^ft <Rl^l< ^"37RFr37T^?T for private u^. 1+ie regjstration book of the vehicle has not been filec^ deceased MangJu did not die in the motor accident cmd the driver otf the vehicte did not have valid and >{nc Claimcuits examined Itwar Sjngh & Sumal Singh, whereas, appedants examined Tulsiram, driver of the ^ehicle. The insurance company did not examine caiy witness. The claims tribunal on due ^onsideration of the evidence avaitable on record allowed the claim peti^ion with the findings that deceased Mangiu died as a result of acci(lent dated 20.4.2007 caused by the offending vehicle which was bein| time of accident; appeibnt No.l claimants are entitled for compens^ition of Rs.80,000/- and the appellants are liable to pcy compensation as commercial purposes i,e. for carr^ driven nishly and negtigently at the VGLS the driver of the oppeflant No»2; ^he private vehicle was being used for |ing Baratis, which is in breach of the poiiq^ condition. Learned coun^l for the at)pel!ants submits that the vehicle in question was duly insured with r^spondent No.3 as held by the claims tribunal, however, the insurer of ^ehicle has been exonenited from the liability and the appellants have be^n jointly and severally held rcsponsible !NI 1 :IS ;II -} \^ "^^yHC-78 ^•^^ '•^ 'S'SST ^NKrl'M, ®fl)'H<|(o,[®1^1-H^< HWWt (t»Nra» ^ 200 3:H^?T TT^)' (15°rf3^T) w^T^T'f^rbF ?T8TT ^TI^T 9b^li<=b ^:.'L- ^ ^TTWTritcT 3^T •l1" for compensating the claimants. tribunal exonerating the insuranc^ and the same deserves to be set I have heard learned counsi impugned award. In Para-18 of the awar-d admission of the appetlant No.l Puchheli as per instructions of t^< vehicle in question is registered cjearly mentions that the vehicle that there is a breach of policy c| insurance company. In tiie considered opinion cJaims tribunai is ba5^d on duej recode and the same does not callj In -Hie result, the cppeal dismissed and it is accordingly dis(i Consequently, I.A. No.l & 2| cni^?<3l<fll 'RW^ff ^f "fe^ '<P?«^K <^T37fW3T!^T Therefore, the finding of the claims ^company is not in accordance with law fl^ide. ^j for the appellcuits. I have perused the ^earned claims tribunal considering the jriiat he was carrying Baratis to viltage t^je appelJouit No.2 and the fact that 1lie as private vehicle and insurance policy |is insured for private use only, has held ^ndition and accordingly exonerated the |3f this Court -rtie above finding of the appreciation of evidence availabfe on forany interference, hojs no substance/the same deserves to be is(nissed at the admission stage its®lf. lalso stand dismissed, Sd/- Dhu-endra Mishra Judge