^, ;-» &..•• IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHffi^TTISGARH AT BILASPUR. ^ ,„ M.A.ICINO. S& l /2011 S^v?, "-r; yr'" fc>. ^ '•''.' APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT No.2 Samarulal Kurre, S/o B.S.Kurre, Resident of Parsabhata, Balco Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Owner of the Offending vehicle 'iNo". C.G. 12 A 7850 RESPONDENTS Claiaaant Driver of the Offending 2. Vehicle ^^"^A ?^<^1( 3- ^3- Narendra Kumar, aged 38years, S/o Pratap Chandra Tiwari, resident of A/2145, Narvada Bihar, Jamnipali, Katghora. Mukesh Nayak, Aged 17 years, S/o Neelu Nayak, through its Natural Guardian Neelu Nayak, resident of Quarter No.0513/4/A, Balconagar, Korba. United India Insurance Co. through ifs Branch Mahager, Main Road, KorbafC.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEALUNDER SECTIOIL173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 .y.- if^ Si' g s 1 '^^s-!"«g <§ %. tfl HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C)No. 504 of 2011 APPELLANT SamaNlal Kurre s/o B.S. Kurre -APPUCANT N0.2 RESPONDENTS Versus Narendra Kuma- and ethere. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VeHiCLE ACT.1988 (SB: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) i<»mNmii^—«>•••• ^m^rtiw<r^au»dfaa<#a«i Present : Mr. Shushobhit Singh, ccxinsei for the appellait. ORDER (11.07.2011) Heard on admission. 1. This is owner's appeat against the award dated 31.1.^)11 passed by learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katghora, Distt. Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.136/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: On 6.2.2005 respondent No.l/ctaimant Narendra Kunar w@s going to Jamnipali and was driving motor cycle beanng registration No. C.G.12/4850, on the way, he was dashed by respondent No. 2, who was a minor, and was driving the motorcycte bearing registration No. C.G. 12A/7850 and pursuant to the above accident clalmant l.e. driver of motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G.12/4850 sustained muitiple injuries. ~ 3. As against the compensation of Rs.5,87,840/- claimed by the respondent No.2/claimantby filing applications under Swtion 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of injuries aistairred by hlm in the accldent dated 6.2.2005 by motor cycle bearing registration No. C.G. 12A/7850, learned Tribunat has awarded compensatton of Rs.1,85,OX5/- along with interest @ 6 % per aiinum and if amount is not paid wjthin a period of 45 days then 9% per annum from the date 1 of application till its payment. .^..;^'5':<'^.^ -'y '':-, ''%. ^y.^^ ~^ ,y _^'"~.~~'*' '-'.'-i";» .^iai&^ !5 '^"^^•^''^^si ^ '%,,_ '"S^- A&' '"^K^SS^ 4. Leamed Tribunal, on a close scrutlny of the entire evidence ted before it held that the accldent has occurr«l due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicte i.e. Mukesh Nayak - a minor boy; exonerated the respondent No. 3/lnsurance Company from its liabillty to pay compensation on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in br^ch of policy conditions and awarded Rs.1 ,85,000/- as compensation. 5. Shri Shushobhit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appetlant would submlt : accident had occurred due to head-on- collusion between the motor-cycle bearing reglstration No.C.Q. 12/4850 being driven by respondent No. 1/claimant and motor-cycle bearing r^istration No.C.G.12A/7850 belng driven of respondent No. 2 at the time of accident and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 is also contributed to some extent to the cause of accident and amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be suitably reduced. Ptacing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Natltmal Insurance Co. Lftf. Vs. Swaran Sliighaad offiers reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, !t was further contended that Tribunal ought to have directed that the respondent No. 3/tnsurance Company first to pay the amount of compensatlon awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant and then to recover it from appellant/owner of the vehicle. 6. I have heard counsel for the appellant and the po-used ttie material avaitable on record including Impugned award. 7. The evidence in the case..reveals that claimant was driving hls motor-cycle on his extreme left-side whereas respondent No. 2 i.e. driver of offending vehicle was driving his motor cycle in the middle of the road and further by going on wrong slde he dashed the claimant's motor cycle which resulted in multiple injuries to the claimant. Further the appellant has admitted hls gullt before the criminal court and based on his admission fine of Rs.300/- has been imposed u(x>n ftim (Ex.D-4). The above admission of the appellant/owner is adrrtsstole under Section 18/21 of the Evidence Act, therefore, the leamed •'^ A :3.': •'':'•.' 't^.'ytk;';i^'1 ^-1 Tribunat has not commtttefll any illegality in holding respondent No. adriver solelyguilty of negllgence. So far as other grounds raised by Mr. Shushobhit Singh, counset for the appellant is eoncerned, admittedly the respondent No.S/lnsurance Company has proved its defence and respondent No. 2 i.e. driver of the offending vehlcle being minor at ttie tirae of accident was driving the motor cycle without ticence. 8. Supreme Court in case of bhwar Cliandra antl ottiers Vs. Ortental frtsurance Co. Ltdrand ottiers reported in (2007) 10 SCC 650 and in case of Natlonal Insurance (^wnpany Umltwl vs. Wdhyadhar ntohanwala and others reported in (20W) 12 SCC 701 by referring paragraphs 45,46 and 89 of Swaran SrngA casie (Supra) has held : In case the driver was not holding valid driving Itoence on the date when the vehicle met with and accident, the Ireurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner ofthe vehicle. 9. Direction to the Insurance Company to flrst pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunat to the ctaimant and then to recover it from appellant/owner of the vehicle is for the benefit of claimant As the claimant has not filed any appeal, in the considered opinlon of this Court, the above plea should not be raised at the behest of owner who himself is held liable for payment of compensation. 10. In view of above, l do not find any infirmity in the award impugned holding appellant responsible for payment of compensation and appeal preferred on above grounds is sans-substance. 11. Therefore, the petitlon belng withoid aib^ance is Hable to be and Is hereby dismissed. Sd/- 1 N.K. Agarwal ; Judge ~~'"<?—-'' I?,.^.,