v HtGliCOURTOFa-IHATTlSGARH^ATEMLASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilio Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. APPELLANTS OWNERS MA(C) No.751/2007 1. Sandeep Tomer, Son of Late Satyaveer Singh Tomer, aged about 21 years; 2. Sumeet Tomer, Son of Late Satyaveer Singh Tomer, aged about 18years; Both are residents of C-3/146, Janakpuri, New Delhi (U.P). Registered owner of Tractor No. U.P. 12/7519. versus RESPONDENTS Ku. Sukriti Bai, D/o Siyaram Sahu, aged 18 years, Resictent of Villaga Salhekapa, Tahsil Kargikala, Distrtet Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimant) Rajkumar @ Raju Dubey son of N.P. Dubey, aged about 35 years, Resident of Mankadika Ghat, Qr. No. 10/203, Police Station Chowk, Varanasi, District Banaras (U.P.) Presently residing at Kota, Potice Station and Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Driver of Tractor No. U.P. 12^519. The Oriental insurance Company Limited, Through: Branch Manager, 9 Community Centre Mayapur, Phase- 1, Through: Divisional Manager, Oriehtaf Insurance Company Limited, In front of High Court Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer) Wtemo of Appeal under Section 173 (21 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present : Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for the appeitanis. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Counsel with Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counsel forthe respondent No.3/insurer. 1 'i^.-il ^^::^^:'K;^A'S:^'K^'^^^^^- ?^.^^?^::^>^^*!l^K^^^^^^|j^^^ .!:i"^PfJS ^y^Kv"i;t^i^l^'i%1^^%tJ^^%^',^>:'Sjy%^ ^:'^ ^;^^it^A^?l^:iM?^?r"<.!1^?^^-@^K^V^il"^^-^-yt-^l!tl ORALORDER (Passed on 09ln October, 2007) Heard finally. 2. This appeal arises out of an award dated 08-03-2007 passed by the Vlllth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 35^006 granting compensation of Rs.35,000/- in injury case. 3. It is not disputed that the Tractor trolley in which the injured was travelling was not insured. Liability was fastened on the owners/appellants white exonerating the Insurance Company. 4. During . course^ of arg.uments, tearned counsel for the "^M-i'i ^-L CT^+II-ff Ovl^UAutowt Ol~0t lAc cA-e( >vy<-l- appetlants did notipoint out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award/judgment. 5. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Kw