i;[S;i'ffi4it Hi:i^^!;:,i:ii!i:- ii.^^ ./' -^ !GH COURf ©f^dUDICATUREGHHATftSGARH : BILASRUR DIVISIONBENCH CORftM HON'Bi.ESI-IR|S.R.NAYAK,|G.J. HON'BLPSHRID.R.DESI-IMUKH.J. APREU-ANT: Defendant No.3 lisc.»bDeaiNo.5440F2006. Th6Newlndia InsuranceCQmpanyLtd., Bhilai.throughitsDivisionalManager, DivisionaiOfRce,Bilaspur.(C.GJ | RESPONDENTS ClaKnantlSto.T ClaimantNo.2 ClaimantNo.3 ClaimantNo.4 versus 1. '5;/ ;;:3; 4; Defendant No.1 Defendant No.2 :5. ShriKushalRam,36years,S/o.Shri Udal^jngh.. ShriRavrKumar,16y0ars,S/o.Shri KushalRam. Shri Chabi Kumar, 14 years, S/6. Shri KushalRam.,.; :" '^' j ^ .. , Shri Rameshwar, 10years, S/o. Shri KushalRam. All residentof viliageShakarwara, fahsil& Distnct- Ohamteri <e.G.). Respondente No.2t64ai"eminor, Throughtheirgi.iardian-father, Resporident No.1 Shri Kushal Ram •Dhobi,^.: ,. • •• •'. • : : .'. ShriGautamRam,S/o.ShriChedru Ram, S/0. Shri Chedru Ram, 28years. —Driver-':;',:'; ' :.' :;;• . Shri DhafmendFaKumar, S/o.Shri MarirakhanSinha. Both^Respondents No^ & 6are R/o. Shalranwara. Tahsil and District- Dhamtari(C.Gj -Owner- Present: Shri Prashant Jayaswal, leamed Sr.Advoeate with Shri Al Asgar, leamedcounsel-fortlie appellant. ^ ORAl.ORDER (Passedon 26In April, 2006) ^-- '..:..• • '..' ' .':.' ". ' •:'• . '• ••• '" "< •'.".. ^ ••' ^ .' "-..... '•.' - .•••.•••• . • '' ' • •-• '-'?l"'t'?. •. •• ' .' '•'• '. ''.•'•• ' • '••':••':\"' : .:..":.'.'. .•.^•:^-:'-': • \ . ''' '. '' .•'•" ''.•'•' ' "•'. The follovvihgorat order bffie Court was passed by S.R.Nayak,C.J. "^;: J;!:'X ,! ;. -^ ^n / v^ -A In this appeal preferred by the New India llnsurance Gompany t-td., the only contention urged before us is that since the insured person violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy,the MACT ought riot to have fastened the liability to pay compensation pn the Insurance Company. Elabprating the contention, it was submitted by the leamed counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that the deceased was traveling in the trolley as a passenger and not as a Coolie whose services were engaged bythe insured perspn to attend tp agricultural operatipns in thefleid. \ (2) We have perused the relevant pi^ces of evidence adduced inthe case. They would eleariygotoshow thatwhen the accident took place,thedeceasedwasbeingcamedtottiefiledasacoolietoattendto agricultural operations. The hiisband of the deceased, in his depositipn, ascould be seen in para 6, has spoken to this effect and which assertioh is nQtseriously contested. Be that as it may, itneeds to be noticed that the Insurance Company having taken the above noted plea, it was its onus to discharge that plea by subsfantive legal evidence. We do npt find any evidence adduced by the Insuranee Gompany to hold that the deceased was travelingas a passenger. The Insurance Company has utterly failed to substantiate the plea taken byit in the pleading; There is no failure of justice. The appeal is devoid ofmerit and itis accordingly dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb DeshmukhV Judge Sd/- Chief Justice E^