IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR MISCAPPEAL. No. H 79/014“ 2003 /N/ationa1 through Insurance it’s Co. Branch Ltd. Manager, Korba /Bi1aspur APF3ELLANT/ INSURER ;rahs11 & Dist.Bi1aspu: (0G) ”Mgy z§ > V H f”; , V mt. itaahata Bah v %uw\&m 2g; VERS \r WAD hate S'rmi Bilchanaxdg Q'IZAIMANT v K/wh R/a. zzear xew Girls schoo REsPONDENTS/ y l amp. $anjay Nags-1:. mamp‘a watt. Janjg£ra¢xampé (cum) .. Lam Amnar Shanna, ’S70 hw‘ 3 Q\. a \ e-V“ l §f‘ ‘'é RESPONDENT] ')/ Prahlad Shanna, aged 29 N/F; years R/o RamRoad Korba RESPONDENTf/V g3 Munna @Tguram,S/o Lon}: I DEVER .//’ Ram Chouhan, aged abdut h é“ /)WNER Kw Tahs11 8s D1stnct Korba (CG) 29 years, R/o Imh Duggu Tahs1l 85 Dlstrlct Korba (CG) / APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE‘ACT / \ 5,“ w . . IN THE HIGH QOURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATISGARH 1 §Di1chand, S/o Asha Ram QRam Dev Rajwade, aged i Dewangan, aged about 53 { years, R/o Barchhapara ‘. Champa, Tah$ 85 District Janjg'r Champa (C.G.) w é‘é" p) wgmmwamwrt ER / ykJ'‘y "’\ / “g/zf’ Prahlad Ht Kumiu‘ Shanna, Shanna, agEd S/o 29 4 / \ JXV; y€ars,R/o Tahs11&Dismct RaniRoad, Korba(CG} Korba i } \ {my EQSPONDENTé v I lugRI‘VER R 3 Munna @Tijum—m’S/O ”W ‘ WV 75$ ' A ¢¥ / Ran Chouhan, aged about“ Z 29 years, R/o Imh' Duggu Tahsil & District Korba (CG) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF QTOR VEHICLE'AQF _ A ‘ #gun,;amaL_\,/,:{:rkkkii // \ k \ AT BILASPUR M13C.APPEAL. No. H 3/014“ 2003 LNSURER P§ELLANT/ /1€ati0nal A through Insurance it’s Co. Branch Ltd. Korba /Bi1aspur Manager, Tahs1 '1& D1s ‘ t.B‘1a 1 spu_( r C.G)Q\ ¥ cowrm‘ , @61003193 HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL No.,1 17 OF 2003 Appellant National Insurance Company Ltd Insurer ’ Vs. Respondents Smt. Kachara Bai & Others Claimant Post for pronouncement of judgment and orders on e, 109/2009. M‘ ‘ l ‘ SILL N. K. Agaiwal ‘ Judge ¥H f . ‘4”1 , HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL No. 117 OF 2003 Appellant National insurance Company Ltd. Insurer Versus Respondents Smt. Kachara Bai & Others Claimant APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. ‘ (i3: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwah J_.) Present : Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate for appellant. Shri PK Patel, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for respondent No.2&3. ORDER ‘ (Passed on $day of September, 2009) 1r. ~ .Thls ls insurers appeal, directed against the award dated 16.08.2002, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short ‘Tribunal’), in claim case No. 25/94, whereby and whereunder the liability to pay Rs. 50,000/-as compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/ insurance company. 2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that, on 06.05.1994, when the husband of claimant coming from Korba to Champa on Jeep No. MP 26/C-0195, an Auto bearing registration No. MP 26/A—3934, dashed the husband of claimant resulting into amputation of right hand. 3. The claimant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune, of Rs. 3,70,000l- for the injuries sustained by him. The appellant filed its written statement and s pleaded that the poHcy has been obtained by the owner of the vehicle after accident took place and therefore, the insurance company is not iiabie to indemnify the insured owner. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions made by the parties, recorded a finding that the accident took place at 4:10 PM on 06.05.1994 whereas the policy has been issued by the appellant/insurance company at 4 PM on 06.05.1994, and therefore at the time of accident a valid policy was in force and insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured, passed the award holding liable to the appellant/insurance company. Hence this appeal. Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the ~ appellant would submit that the difference of time between the issuance of policy and occurrence of accident is only ten minutes and the fact of obtaining the policy after accident cannot be ruled out in the facts situation of the case, therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed. Per contra, Shri PK Patel and Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondents, by referring First Information Report wherein it has been mentioned that the time of accident is 4:10 PM, and by further referring statement of appellant’s witness Yogesh Dubey wherein it has been admitted by Shri Dubey that before issuance of cover note he examined the vehicle, submitted that admittedly the cover note was issued at 4 PM after examining the vehicle and only ' thereafter the accident took place at 4:10 PM, and therefore the contract of insurance was effective at the time of accident s and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner and in this way of matter, the trial court has not committed any illegaiity in fastening the liability upon the insurance company. i have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the record and order impugned. Undisputediy, the policy was issued at 4 PM and accident took place at 4:10 PM i.e. after ten minutes. Nothing has been brought by the appellant/insurance company on the record which could suggest that infact the policy of insurance/cover note was obtained by the owner of the vehicle after accident took place. On the contrary, the witness namely Yogesh Dubey, who was examined by the insurance company, admits in his statement ~ that he issued cover note only after examining the vehicle and owner was before him at the time of issuance of cover note. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that policy has been issued by the appellant/insurance company after accident took place. Therefore, at the time of accident policy was in force and the trial court has not committed any illegality in fastening the liability upon the insurance company. 10. ln view of the above, the appeal being devoid of substance deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No~order asto / Sahu costs. sai— ’ N. KIAgaiwa‘ ‘ Judgé , .