^/ o^. HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR /y PBTITIONBR INSURER RBSPONDBNTS CTAIMANT DRIVER OWNER PETITIONBR INSURER RESPONDBNTS CTAIMAJffT DRIVER QWNER CivU Revision No. 64 OF 2009 Cholamaiidlam General Insiirance Conmiany Ltd. Through braach Maaager Cholamaadlam General InsuraB.ee Conunany Ltd. opposite Rajiv Plaza Bus Staad BUaspur C.G. Versus 1. 2. 3. Raaibali Bhashakar S/o Narayaa Siuywansi Aged 30 years R/o ViUage Paud, P,S, Huri, Distorict Bilaspiir C.G. Dewendra Kumar Puri S/o Narayaa Puri R/o Village MohBhatta Biilia P.S. Bilha Distorict Bilaspur C.G. Adarsh Stone Miaes Bodsara Bilha District Bilaspur C,G, AND Civfl Revision No. 65 OF 2009 Versus 1. 2. 3. Cholajiiaadlam General Insurance Conuxiaay Ltd, Through braach Maaager Cholainaadlam General Insurance Coiamaiiy Ltd. opposite Rajiv Plaza Bus Stand Bilaspur C.G, Ishwar Bijozire S/o Bhilchari Surywaushi Aged 30 years R/o ViUage Paad, P.S, Hirri, District BUaspur C.G. Dewendra Kumar Puri S/o Narayaa Puri R/o Vfflage Mohbhatta Bilha P.S. Bilha District Bilaspur C.G. Adarsh Stone Mines Bodsara Bilha District Bilaspur C,G, REVISION U/S 115 OF THB CODE OF CIVIL PROCBDURB. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner/appUcant (in CivU Revision Nos. 64/09 & 65/09). Shri AU Asgar, Advocate for fhe respondent No, 3 (ia Civil Reyision Nos. 64/09 & 65/09). ^ ^^^^-^ 1 / i ^,\'^•. ^: ^.2 .°? Q// INNKNIW ORAL- ORDBR (Passed on 10/11/2010) CivU revision Nos, 64/09 & 65/09 filed by petitioner agamst award passed in claim case Nos. 103/2008 & 104/2008 by 6th Additional Motor Accident Clamis Tnbiinal, BUaspiir relatmg to one accident is beiag disposed ofby fhis common order, By fhis civU revision Nos, 64/09 & 65/09 Petitioner has challenged fhe legality aad propriety oftlie award dated 20/3/2009 passed by 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tnbunal, BUaspur (ia short 'tribunal') in Claun petition Nos. 103/2008 & 104/2008 whercby aad where under leamed tdbunal has awarded Rs, 5,000/- & Rs. 8,000/~ to fhe respondents RambaU Bhashakar & Ishwar Bijoure respectively who have rcceived mjury on account of motor accident. As per pleadiags of fhe parties ia Claioi case Nos. 103/2008 & 104/2008 appUcaats Rambali Bhashakar & Ishwar Bijoure were goiag by inotorcycle. Respondent No. 2 driver of fhe J,C.B. Earfh Moviag Machiae (niotor vehicle) owned by respondent No. 2 and msured by petitioner was drivmg fhe vehicle rashly aiid negUgenUy on 22/7/2008 and caused iajuiy to aforesaid appUcants, First Infonaation Report was lodged, AppUcaats were exammed by fhe doctors. FuiaUy bofh the claioi petitions were filed. Opportunity for filiag written statement was given to present petitioner i.e, Insuraace Compan^y but petitioners have faUed to file fhe written statement fhen right to j51e written stateraent of petitioner was closed vide order.dated 23/1/09. Issues were framed aad case was posted for evidence on 27/2/09. Petitioner filed aa appUcation for takiag i %^^k l y-^ '''^t^^'""'"""":;^ '!^ ^' .^^ -J- ^^ written statement m record same was considered aad dismissed by fhe Court below and finally clami was partiaUy awarded vide award dated 19/3/09. 4. Learaed counsel for the petitioner Shri Abhishek Siaha aad leamed counsel for fhe respondent No, 3 Shn AU Asgar ia bofh fhe civil revisions are heard, 5. Record ofbofh the Courts below aad ofher documents are perused, 6. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner submits that ia order to award claioi agamst the Insuraace Coinpaay, Claimaat was under obUgation to prove fhe fact fhat ofFenditig vehicle was iasured with Insuraace CoDipaiiy agaiast whoin coinpensation has been claiined on fhe ground of iasuraiice contract but ia the present case alfhough Tribunal has not permitted to file reply and to adduce evidence or contest fhe case to fhe petitioner but fhe niaterial adduced by respondent No. 1 is not suflElcient to prove fhe fact fhat offendiag vehicle was iasured with titie petitioners Insuraace Company fherefore m absence of such evidence and prove fhe Tribuual was not justified ia awarduig conipensation agaiast fhe petitioner. 7, On fhe other hand, learaed counsel for the rcspondeut No, 3 opposed fhe bofh the civil revisions aad submits that J.C,B, Earfh Moviag Machiae owned by respondent No. 3 was iasured with fhe petitioner and was driven by respondent No, 2 aiid on fhe basis of evidence adduced on behalf of respondent No. 1 Tribunal has fasteaed Uability upon the petitioner, Tribunal has not committed aay iUegalily or has not exceeded its jurisdiction vested on it. 1^1 f/i l^" Lf- ^ ConsequenUy, present civU revisions arc devoid of merits aad Uable to be dismissed. 8. In bofh the claiin petitions as per record of fhe Tribunal, Tribunal has provided sufficient opportunity for filiag written statement to fhe petitioners ia a suiiunery proceeding but petitioner has not filed its wntten statement withm stipulated time fhereby right to file written stateinent was closed by the Tribunal vide order dated 22/1/09, Aflter passiag of siich order reasons best known to tlie petitioner, petitioner has not chaUenged fhe order before the higher forum, but on 23/2/09 on the date of evidence petitioner has filed an application for providiag opportunity of fiUng written statement aad to adduce evidence which was disniissed by the Tribunal. Award axid evidence adduced on behatf of fhe respondent No, 1 reveal fhat J.C.B, Earth Moving Machiae has been seized by fhe PoUce along wifti Insuraace poUcy paper and oftier documents from fhe driver i.e. respondent No, 2 vide Ex. P-2, 9, Considenng fhe docunientaiy and oral evidence specially Ex, P-2 which reveal that vehicle and iasurance docimient of fhe vehicle has been seized by fhe police, Tribunal has awarded conipensation against the petitioner. Definitely same is week kiad of evidence but m absence of aay contra evidence such evidence was sufficient for proviag fhe fact that vehicle was iasured with the petitioner therefore by awardiag coinpensation agaiast fhe petitioner learaed Tribunal has neifher exceeded its jurisdiction vested on it nor committed aay iUegality. Consequently, bofh the civU revisions ie, civil revision Nos, 64/09 & 65/09 arc devoid of merits same are Uable to be dismissed aad are hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. 11. Copy offhte order be kept m civU rcvision No. 65/09. ^^ ^ 30^e </^