'^ ^. ^ c INTHE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl CIVIL REVISION N0. / /3 OF 2009 "y' ^ PLICANT .^ ^^ f. ^^>" ^y" A^ •v"".. i^- _.^^ .A^ ^'^-" ^^i'" ^THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., TROUGHBRANCH MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARMANAND BUILDING NEAR RAJENDRA PARK DURG, (C.G.) (INSURANCE COMPANY OF VEHICLE. NO.C.G.04H/9866) Vrs. RESPONDENTS:- ^ FARSURAM DARRO S/0 BUDHRAM DARRO, AGE 35 YEARS, VILLAGE GHOTIA, POST BADGAON, TEH. PANKHAJUR, DISTRICT KANKER, (C.G.) 2. OM PRAKASH @ PRAKASH KUMAR ^ SAHU S/0 HEMLAL SAHU, AGE .29 YEARS, RESIDENT VILLAGE BADGAON, POST AND THANA BADGAON, DISTRICT KANKER, (C.G.) (REGISTERED OWNERAND DRIVER OF VEHICLE N0. C.G.04H-9866) CIVILREVISION UNDER SECTION 115 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 113 of 2009 ADplicant ResDondents The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Farsuram Darro & Another 2. Civil Revision Under Section 115 of Code ofCivii Procedure, 1908 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) : Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate for appiicant. ORALORDER (Passed on 5th day ofJanuary, 2010) The instant revision is directed against the order dated 30.10.2009 passed bythe Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Balod (for short 'the Tribunal') in MJC N0. 37/09, whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the applicant/insurance company for refund of the amount which has been deposited by the company pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal under Section 140 of the M.V. Act in claim case No. 31/08 has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that, a claim case bearing registration No. 31/08 was filed by the claimant against the owner as well as against the applicant. tn the said case, the application under Section 140 of MV Act filed by the clajmant was allowed by the Tribunai and in pursuance thereof the amount has been deposited by the applicant insurance company. Later on, while deciding the application under Sectior»-166ofMV Act, the insurance company has been exonerated from its liability to pay any compensation to the ciaimant. UAOJj 9U18S 9l<^ J9A038J ABUU pB3j|dd8 Qi^ ^61^ UO|lBAJ9SqO UB qilM uopoi.idde 9i|i pessjiusip ^i '(60/2.C 'ON OnAl) Sui.peeoojd eiejedes B ui ynoo 941 ueqAA '9jo^9jaqi ^uBOtjdde 941 oi une^ ou jepun pepjeMe uojiesuQduuoo p lunouje eqi puniej o\ uoipejip Aue uieiuoo pu S90p qoiqM pv AIAI P 991, uoipas jepun 600S'£0'I.C peiep pjBMe 941 IsuieOe |eedde Aue pejje^jd jou py AIAI ^o 017 \, uoiioes J9pun pessed pjeMe 941 isuie6e jeedde Aue p9|y jeM^su ^ueoiidde 94^ 'Aipeindsipun •peuBnduui jepjo sq^ pesmed pue lueoijdde 941 jo^ Suueedde |esunoo 9L|i pjeeq QAeq | •(61<S-OS666t yiV 'ui peyodej) ueAeqgey •X •A psqez -S'IAI P sseo ui pessed ynoo suiajdns p iuaLu6pnf aqi uodn pei|9j |e/y\ej6v UMS 'uoiiu^uoo siq p ^ioddns u| 'uoiiesueduuoo Aue Aed o\ Aij|iqei| s^i LUJO^ peiejeuoxe uaeq seq Aueduuoo 9^ t84l pej jo tL(6j| 941 u.i iov AIAI P ot?t. uoip99 JQpun pjeMe 941 BuiAjsi^es eiiqM peiisodep seq iueoi|dde eq^ qoiqAA lunouue 94^0 punpj QLII jo^ p9|^ue si iueo||dde 941 pue B\ 0} Ajejiuoo si tueoi|dde p uoi^eoiidde sqi p uoipefoj ieqi it.uuqns jeiiynj pinoM 9H 'pJBAfte eij^ p Buissed jeye 11 Aq pejje^ejd uoiieoi|dde ue uo ^ueoiidde 94101 pepun^ej ueeq QAeq Q} yj^no une^ ou jepun peijsodep lunouue 941 'iueuuiep 94^ oi uoiiesuediuoo Aue Aed ot Ai!|iqei| sii LUOJ^ p9^ej8uox9 ueeq seq Auediuoo souejnsui 941 ©ouis}B{^ yujqns p|noM ^ueoiidde eqi jo^ Buueedde |esunoo peujeei 'ieMejBy JjMpns P4S •lueoi.idde 941 o} ynej ou jepun pepjeMe uoiiesueduuoo p ^unoiue 9L|i punpj o} uoipajip Aue uietuoo pu seop 401.4^ 600S"£0'l-£psiep P-IBMB |euy eijllsuieSe leedde Aue pejjQ^ejd jou py AIAI P Ot^l- uoipes jepun passed pjeMe eq^ isuiefie leedde Aue peiy jeiilisu iueoi|dde 941 ^€: ^. the owner of the vehicle, then it cannot be said that the trial court had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by lawor faiied to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The SupremeCourt in case of M.S. Zahed (Supra), while dealing with Section 50 of Karnataka Rent Control Act (22 of 1961), observed that while entertaining the revision, ffie court can re-appreciate the evidence to find out correctness of order of lower court. Here, in the instant case, the facts are entirely different. In the present case, the applicant has neither challenged the award passed under Section 140 of MV Act nor the award passed under Section 166 of MV Act. In a separate application, he wants refund of the amount deposlted by it under no fault award, therefore, the above cited case is of no he!p to the applicant. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision being devoid of substance is liable to be and is herehy dismissed at admission stage. No order asto costs. I i 1 , Sd/- i 1 N. K. Agarwal Judge i Sahu