^^. Hon'ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. M.A.C. No.57of2008 Janakram Dhruvanshi, son of Abhay Ram Dhruva,"shi, resident of Viiiage Bhedanvani, Post Kosmarra, aged about 42 years, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) Smt Narmada Bai Sahu, aged about 35 years, widow of late Vishnuram Sahu Chunesh Kumar son of Late Vishnuram, aged about 17years, Rupesh Kumar son of Late Vishnuram Sa'nu, aged about 15 years Ku. Tripti Sahu D/o Late Vishnuram Sahu, aged about 13 years; The appeliant No.2 to 4 are Minors, through their nafurai guardian Mother appeilant No.1 Narmada Bai widow of Late Vishnuram Sahu; Brijlai Sahu son of Late Ranjeet Sahu, aged about70 year; Aii resident of Viiiage Korra, Tahsii Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) United India insurance Company Limited Krishna Comptex, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, TahsiE and District Ralpur (CG (insurer) jon 173_[2Lof the Motor Vshicle Act, Present: Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counsel for fhe appelSant. (Passed. onl 2.02.2008) 'he appeliant is aggrieved by an award dated 17.10.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (henceforth the 'MA.C.T'), Dhamtari (CG), whereby liability to pay compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- was fastened on the appetiant/owner whiie exonerating the insurance companv on account of fundamental breach ofoolicv. \: \'<. ^S^^?CT"^ ^^^^B^^^^^S^%©^M'!^s?^^^^^5.%'?^%sf^M?G Pnya N (2) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, 1 have perused the impugned award. Brief facts are that on 5.11.2006, deceased Vishnu was riding as a pillion rider on a motor cycie bearing No.CG-OS/ZE-2573 (henceforth the 'motorcyclae') driven by Manharan. Risk of the pillion rider was not covered by the insurance company. License of Manharan was a fake license. The M.A.C.T. fastened iiability on Janakram, the owner of the motor cycle to pay compensation and awarded compensation of Rs.1,90,000/-. (3) The evidence ied by the cl deceased was a olilion rider. !t is not risk of the pillion rider was not covered in M.A.C.T has rlghtiy appreciated the ora evidence adduced by the insurance conclusion that the iicense of Manharan, was fake. established that the ted in this appeal that the the insurance policy. The as welt as documentan? company to arrive at a driver of the motor cycle, (4) in this view of the matter, the M.A.C.T has rightly exonerated the.insurance company from the iiabjtity to pay compensation while fastening llability on the appeilant'owner. No other ground was urged. The appeai being devoid of merit is dismissed, at the stage of admission. (5) In view of the above, i.A. No.1 for grant\of.siay_aiso stands DUip ^a/-^ Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge \: