[CHHATTISGAR Ww Shg g 3m M!ISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF I ‘ ' ’ MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 APPELLAN_T/ /1NSURER ¢atlonal1nsurance hrough AsSIstant Manager, Co Ltd Natlonal Insurance Co Ltd B 1,Taha Complex, Ist Floor Ring Road, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and Dist.Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) vaRsus 1 Blrendra Kumar, S/o Sharan RIVER] Das Vaishnav,aged about 29 \RE§P0NDENT . ' years, R/o Village Kharra Tahsil & Police Station Berla, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) RESPONDEE /2 Devlal Verma, S/o Shivkali ¢ [PWNER] Verma, R/o Vill. aged Kharra, about Post. 33 Kusmi years, Tahsil & Police Station Berla, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) i RESPONDEE 3'; Keshav, S/o Samaru Ram [ChAIMANT] / Sahu, aged about 23 years, xx R/o Vill. Kharra, Post. Kusmi Tahsil & Police Station Berla, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) W/ MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE r; MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 “:3 m m “ / ‘ ; l EXILHC-22 , " 15122905 . The appellant has prelerred this Miscellaneous Aopeal under Sectlon 173 of the Motor Vehl‘les Act 1988 as ihe award for a sum or -' @F 52 000/— has been passe Clarm$ Tnbunal has erre In fastening the llabllrty upon rhe . amellant/lnsurance Company! normg the fact *hat the vemde m ques’non l~ was used n contravention of t e pohcy condxtmns end the clairram was ‘ Cempanv was not ! abie for sa « , ‘of the Motor Vehwies Act 1988 However the Tnbunal has demded Iaeue No 2 “Whefher fhe claimant we travelling m fhe vehzcie a3 a passenger :3 ,a breach 0f polrcy conditions? m favour of the clement and the above ' fndlng is erroneoue I l have heard learned cou sel tor the appellant on admreeron l . r , l I oath that he was travellmg as a hamma/ on the sald vehicle on the date o: ' ' accxdent The cialmante eVId Shn Samay K Ag aw’aM'e arned counsel fer the appeHant. Heard on admissien. favaur of the respondent ‘le 3/clalmant towards the injuries sustained b hlm m the motor vehlrle accrdeht v: The contention of the ounsel for the appellant rs ‘that learned ' d lltravelllng as a gratwtous passe gar and therefore the appellanffmsurance ymg the award as per Sermon 149 (2) (a) The Clarme Trrbunal aft r framing issue N02 has arrived to the nclusron that the clarmant h s pleaded and stated rn hrs statement on e on thrs point has not been rebutted by insurance Company has not ted arty ’ tton of the Platmant thelnsurance Company. T e éevidehce to controvert the co d m f ti h c n nt Xi—HC—zz ‘ 9‘ r The fndmg of the 1 aaméd Ciaim$ Tribunal is based on the his wnnesses who have cafegoncally statgd d as a hammai and was waveHmg m +he‘ ' “ s piece of eVIdence is not rebutted that the - 1 0‘ the clalmant in the aforec ed any evxdence to contravert the conteniken ordmgiy the appeal is ghsmxesed at ghe ‘ ‘ i admssmh eiage. > ’ ' statement of the ciaimant anc than the dalmant was enga vehicle; as a hamma-l and th msurance Company has not “he instant appeal and ac aid Circumetances there %s no substance m ‘ in View of the’above, N. . CF. No. 1429;2005 stands} d€$posed of. . Sd/— DHIRENDRA MI$I-mA Judge