.€ff%. ^) HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D8VSSSONBENCH: Coram: HON'BLE MRT.P.SHARSVSA & HON'BLE MR.R.N.CHANDRAKAR, JJ. iVI.A.CC) No.1289 of 2008 The New india Assurance Company Limitsd Versus Anil Kumar Yadav and another ORDERFORCONSIDERATION Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge 'ble SVSr.R.N.ChandraRar, J. J) (^^-•€^0.-. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Post for pronouncement of the Order on: 7/9/2011 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^^^ .^" ..i. •^&^ \ ^^ ^s^ HJGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BSLASPUR D!VSSiON BENCH: Coram: HON'BLE MR T.P.SHARMA & HON'BLE MR.R.N.CHANORAKAR, J.J. AppeSlant Dsurer IV!.A.(aNo.1289 of2008 The New india Assurance Company Ljmited, through the DsvjsionaS Manager, The New Indla Assurance Company Ltd. Second FSoor, Rama Trade Centre, Bus Stand Road, Biiaspur (ChhaSttsgarh) Versus Respondersts CSalmanV Driver 1. AniS Kumar Yadav Son of B.S.Yadav, aged about 28 years, R/o Vidyut Nagar, Durg, through-Chhatrapatl Shivaji Engineering and TechnoSogy Coliege Baioda Road, Kojihapuri, DjstrictDurg (C.G.) Owner 2. Abdul Gajnafar Kadri, S/o Abdui Aziz Kadri, aged about 55 years, R/o Uvednagar, Ekta Coiony, near Bade Kunwa, Kunkda Jagat, Chhsndwars (M.P.) (Appeai under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehides Act, 1988) Mr.Soursbh Sharma, counsei forthe appelSant. Mr.H.S.Ahluwalia, counsel for respondent No.1 . Mr.Varunendra Mishra, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (Passed on 7th September, 2011) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Nr.T.P.Sharma, <1. 1. By this appeal under Section 173 of the IViotor Vehlcies Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), appeSiant has chaiienged i^ailty and propriety of the award dated 30.6.2008 passed by 2nd Addltional Motor Accident Ctaims TribunaE, Durg (for short 'the TribunaS') in Ciaim Case No.45/07, wherebyths Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,97,219/- to respondent No.1 m injury case. :s~^ •-.:'^.r^. ;;</^1;':'.:;.'^{' 2' 2. The appeiiant/insurance Company has impugned the award on the ground that respondent No.1 was driver and he was responsjbie for negiigent, therefore, he is not entitied for any award under Section 163-A of the Act and by awarding the aforesaid amount, th9 Tribunal has committed iilegaiity. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeai are that on 25.12.2006 Car No.M.P.28 C/2284 was given by respondent No.2 Abdut Gajnafar Kadri to his daughter as present in her marriage. Respondent No.1 who was having valid license v^as driving the vehicie which was dashed on 26.12.2006 at about 5.45 a.m. at morning with unknown truck and thereby respondent No.1 received serious injury resuited into permanent disabiiity, he was admitted in hospital since 26.12.2006 tiil 11.1.2007. He has fiied ciaim petition under Section 163 of the Act against the present appeliant and respondent No.2. By fijing repiy, the present appeiiant has specificaiiy pieaded that respondent No.1 himself was responsibie for the negligent and accident, therefore, he was not iiabie for any compensatson. After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,97,219/- aiong with 6% interest per annum. 4. We have heard Searned counsei for the parties, perused the award jmpugned and record ofthe Tribunai. 5. Learned counsel for the appeliant vehemently argued that iiabiiity of driver was under the condition IMT 28, therefore. it was onty extendabie up to driver and other person who was driving the vehfoie. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the appeai and argued that it was package poSicy as mentioned in the poiicy, therefore, in the light of CsrcuEar dated 16.11.2009 issued by insurance Reguiatory and Deveiopment Authority in reference: SRDA/NL/CSR/F&U/073/11/2009, occupant of the vehicie is entitied for compensation. 7. Aforesaid insurance poiicy Ex.A/1 was package polscy covered under Circuiar dated 15.11.2009 issued by insurance ReguSatory and Deve!opment Authority in reference: iRDA/NL/CiR/F&U/'073/11/2009 ^- and respondent No.1 was occupant of the vehicSe, therefore, respondent No.1 was entitied for compensation under Section 163 of the Act. 8. Vsde award impugned, the Tribunai has awarded compensation wlthin the iimits of Section 163-A of the Act. We do not find any iSlegaiity or infirmity in the award impugned warranting interference in exercise of appeliate jurisdiction. 9. Consequentiy, the appeai belng devoid of merit is iiabie to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^