lm IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal No. g§m /2004 Si n g fa APPELLANT : / Oriental Insurance Conpaxty Ltd, Defenriant No3 Anmilcapm, Distt. Sarguja, Waugh its [Hxdaional Manager, High Court Raad, ’ Bilaspm‘ (CG). u . j, -Versus — i RESPONDENT : 1. Parmesltwer , 45 years! /@nimn11t No.1 . / > 8/0 Late 311i D11mtishc3l1mi,. Occupation Agicultmist. RESPONDENT : 2; EkrmlmlaDevL40yeals, / Clannani No.2 i” W/o Shxi Paxmeshwer, JLJ I Occupaiim‘ Housewife. Y Both R/o Village— Paxsadeeha, RS. Qxalgaii, Tahsil — Wadrafnagar, District— Sarguia (CG). $1, 6% DNDENT : 3. Eubhash Chandra Gupt, 45 years, /.«Defendmf No.1 ”W S/D Not known, R/o Nagar Bhatgaon 1k Police Chowky, Bhatgaon, Police &ation— District— Sarguja. Pmtappur, — OW- RESPONDENT 4i Subh Naréyan, 28 yams, Defendant No.2 S/o PaijnathSahu, MVm; R/o vmage— Parasdeeha, Police Station— Glalgali, Tahsil— Wadrafnagar, Distxict—Sargxja. — Driver- ‘ xx SECTIONWS OFTHE MOTORVEHICLES ACT 1988 APPEAL UNDER V, A§peal valued at Rs. 96,000f—. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Pl'ashant Kumar Mishm " _ Misc. Appeal No. 703/2004 APPELLANT : Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus RESPONDENTS z Parmeshwar ami others Appearanca: $hn' Ajay Mishra, ccumel for the appellant. «Shri Sunil Tripathi, counsel for respondent No.3. i APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 ORAL ORDER (11.08.2010) The prasent appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by the insurer on the ground that the claims tribunal has committed an error of law by holding the appellant liable to indemnify the award. (2) Counsel for the appellant has argued that from the evidence available on record it is established that driving licence in possession of the driver of the oEending vehicle was fake, therefore it should \ have been held that the vehicle was driven in breach of policy condition. (3) Counsel for respondent No.3 has argued that the appellant has not examined any officer from the concerned Regional Transport. Authority to establish that driving licence was not issued by the said i office. He would submit that the afhdavit of the surveyor and the i‘ 1 ARTO appointed by the insurance company would not be sufficient t0 hold that the driving licence was fake. 9i) (4) The investigator appointed by the insurance company namely Shri SP. Mohanti and A.R.T.O., Mr. Harihar Kar has smeared affldavit to the effect that the said driving licence was not issued from the Regional Transport Office, Cuttack, however, 'both the above deponents have not been examined before the claims tribunal. The insurance company, in its reply filed before the claims tribunal has not u stated * . that the t owner of the vehicle was aware that the licence 1n _ possession of the driver was fake. There is no material on record Submitted by the insurance company to establish this fact that the illegality or fraudulent character of the driving licence was in the knowledge of the owner. (5) In the matter of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lehru and others, 2003 AIR-SC“; 1695, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in order to hold that the insurance company would not be liable to indemnify the award in a case where driving licence was forged, onus would lay upon the insurance company to prove that the owner of the vehicle was aware of the fraudulent character of the licence. (6) Since in the present case no such evidence is brought on record, the learned claims tribunal has not committed any error of law by holding that the insurance company would be liable to satisfy th . G ‘ award. \ ( ‘ ’ ’ e 1 (7) The appeal having no substance is dismissed. e