m v wmmmmumm Mm” WM“ w ¢ m VWf‘m f£§§3iN$M $w$wk . Mam MAL hMM WM: V bwWWX {M5 2% H$“"{3h§ g {)HMwmmKé‘3m M w§ Wfl£ «3 Wm WWW! gm N13 M W mmx? WWEM AN? : Natmma} ér‘uaurar‘me Gampanv hwwww “ km Na} ILmm€u, u ,.:L .I "I'M” unmasgx‘xi .ml ha: 4a l‘”\‘« uWmKGHLW! :m‘ Mamagar Diviwenai OWw, EM Taha CGmpmx Rmg Raw NM, Fisiktww (QC?!) \KW‘WMI‘H #:K" VhiK W6 WL WWW» “i. $mt. Neetu WW6 Umaghamkar mWWUWWT Maw Dmbay, agedwétO yeara (AWM‘WANY Nmm 2‘ Ram$hankan S/O Ummhankar Dubey, aged-20 wears. {AWWLWAWT Nww 3. Ku. Shweta, D/O Umashankar Bubey, aged-4; 8 yeam. QIWWMWWWWWM 4. Ku. Manika; D/O Umashankar aubey, ageCM 6 yaara Rawwndam MM?“ mmar through— mather (res. no.1—8mt. Nitu Dumy) A}! are pzarmamant WO Lorami, P‘: & Tah~ Lormi, Diwa- B‘éé‘spu (CG) {mm #MW JMW £5. bamogh Kumar 53/0 Latesiram ?ai? MM awn A \fH acmxmmi “Mm; au y’wcnw mu v n i‘xamm P 5 & Fah- Loram§ uxé‘m: Dmmpw xuw) If‘f‘\‘ 1mm». \uub D fix/m) IuqA Mvmd Eula Ramkripa! Gupta. “I M- HHAAmIw- .““““ Rm Jai$tambh uhowk (amgl Read? Kata, Distt. mawur (8(3) 5‘; WW JRWPL bMNW Vk A” W a-.. S} CL f’ g $€ K1 G 9 Li wwm WWW wmmm mm W “ma wmww wmmm Mmwg Ptewm. arm Dacshratn buma izeamecx ceunmi for thaa aweHaz H§€3H C§€3UM UM" (EHWM W §3§$.¢%§%§“¥ KM“ WLMaWUH (/7 $9 r; The fmmwmg (war 0f the Court was pametj by Ragazav (Emma, (LJ. Learned coun$e1 for the appeliam m heard on LA. Ncm (appiiaa‘cian for candona‘tion 0*? {Way m mmg the appeai). 2‘ Cm due conSidammm of ma $ubmi$$iam of ieamed oaurwszei W the appeliant, xma are Sati‘sféad that the appenant hafs wmeemed in wawhwg $Ln’fmient cauaa far the dalay ‘m fmng the angaat 3. Thereafore, LA. NrM m mmwed and the deiay in firing ma appaa? m hereby condaned. 4V Learned coumse! for the appenant i?» heard on admission. 5. Thig is inwmm appam :agaimf me award dated 11‘5‘20‘07, paagaa by the Additmnm Momr Acciciem mairm Tribunal, MuHQEIi, Dmrict Bilaaspur (far ahort “the Tribuna!”) in Claim Case N08OI2OD6. 6‘ A“: agaimt the campenwtim of R330:35,0UO/- ciaimed by km Ciaimwfs, unfmimmate Widow arwd children of deceaged Umashankar Dubey: for his: {mam in the mmar accident on 19.7.2006 Wham “ma bma bearirxg ragisstration numbar CCBU?—ZA~ 03% in which he waa havemhg mat Whh an accident due to the rwh am nagugent driving of 1m driver, the “T"ribunai awarded a campensation a?“ R$A5,4é3,7$0/- with mmrest @ 75% per annum fmm the date of thing of the htairh pehtmn tin tha date 0f actuai payment. A '2’. Aamittwiy. pexrmsasion under $ecticm 17m of the Motor Vehmlea Act, 1%?3 (for wort “ma Amt“) t0 contegt the maim on a“ avaé£abie defencw wag mt granmd to me appeuant mwranca Campany. in the abseme 0f permiwiam undgr Semion 1‘70 of the Act, it i$ not permiwible for the imurer of the vaamme m maiienge the quantum of compensation in View 0f the dictum of the Apex 0mm in tha case of Natiohai Mmjmmm (:0. Lm. Vs. NicoEIatm Rhmagi arm mhm‘s, reported in 2mm (3) Tim: 2% ($3) wherein h wag categoricahy heid m Para5—i31 6% 32 as undar: ”31We have aiready hetd that unle$s the conditions prewdent specified in $ecii0n 170 of 19885 Act ig satinfiad, an insurance Campany ha$ no right of appeai to ohaiiengo tho award on meritsa. However, in o oimoiion where: ihero 1o a ooiiuoion beiwoen the oiaimanio and the moored or the insured does not contain tho oiaim and, further, the Tribunai does nor, impioad tho inourarioo Company to conieot the oiaim in ouch cameo ii i5 orien to ah ihoiirer to soak oormiosion of the Tribunai to oon’root tho oiaim on tho ground availabie io rho inoureci or to a porooh againot whom a ciaim has boon made. if permission is granted and the insuror is oiiowod to content tho oiairn on merito in that case it is open to the insurer to tiie an apnea! againot an award on merito, if aggrioveci. in any oaoo whore an aopiioation for porminoion to erroneouoiy rejected the insurer can chaiiengo oniy that part oi" the order white fiiing appeei on grounde opeoit’ied in nub-section (2) of $eotion Mt“) oi W838i Aot. But ouch appiiootion for permission has; to be boner ride and tiieo at the stage when the insured in required to ieao hie evirienoe. So tar no obtaining oompenoa‘tion by iraoo by the claimant (Q éss mncemed, w arm imger rag: Mama that fraud vmaim {ha enfire pmmaadmg and in such casam i? i3 (men t0 av: imsm'ar m amt)! t9 the Tribunal far mmn‘icatmn 0f" award. 3m? Fm fm rwmm, mur armwer m the quemmn i$ that even W“ m appaax isa pmferrad undar Secticzn 173 of 198% Amt by an inssuréd againm the»? awam c>f a Tribunai, 3t m; n93: permi$$ibia mr an inwrer to We? em apmeai m1£e$mning the quantum of mmpeem-xatmn assx wzaii a$ findimggw 25$ regards; negiigae‘mre 0r cmtributary negligence of the aff‘ending vehsc§&." 8. Shri Damra‘th Gupta, Learned caumae¥ for the appellan‘t ssubmitmd thaf tha appaiiazwbinwrmmé campany had in fact fiieczf am applicatmn under $ectim 170 0f ihe Act far grant 0f permmsmm m contam We ciaim an aii avaiiab‘e defencesa, but the Tribunai did mat pam may orcier (m We 3aid applicatian and the ma! awam‘j waaa pamed aga‘mm W3 appeuant insurance mmpany. 9. In the preaent cane an: the maimanm’ claim wan contained my the nwnar m’ thn Q‘ffeannmg veninm bug: magnum as ma wen di$putaad the inwivnment cf nisa bun in the accidnnt, the appnoatmn med by the apneaiiant-innurnnne company under $emi0n 170 of the Ant Gnuid not have been auowed by the T'ribz,2na! and thn pearmisamon mum nut have bean granted to rhe appeilan‘r—in$urance company tn cnnrest the crairn on an availabie dafnncesa, an it is rhe cnndit’rnn pr'ecradent berom granting permign’rnn under $ncnnn 170 of rhn Ant f‘orthn Tribunni to recnrd a finding rhar the nwner nf rhn vrahrnire eithar wan nnt contessting $uhbul- 23“ meg claim m wa$ m witwmn whih the maimamcfh A$ the mwmr 0f the vehioke vehementiy mntegted ”(he ciaim.‘ the Tribunal mum net have recorded a fmding that the ownm 0f the; vehicle eithw’ waia not mnteming ma? daim or was: in (bonusion with the Ciaximanm 10. Swen from any angle; appeiiant—insurance campany manna: m3 parmii‘ieci to mhaitenge mg quamum af compénsation awarded by the Tribunal in We, appeal. ‘Thm apart, WE are $ati3‘iied that the compensation of R$.5,43;750/— awan‘iad by the Tribuna! to the Claimanm far the dgaih nf Ur‘naat‘mnkar Duney, wi‘m wag the owner (3f a mkwy §$ junt and pmpar compennatian in the iac‘ig and cimui‘nn‘iancian Qi‘ the pmneani: mane. H. The appiaai iiigiri by the appeiiant-inwrancn campany, therefnre, i3 iianiia to tie dinniimted and in nértaby di$mi$sed Q niitnmartty. Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra Sd/- Judge Chief Justice