M+ 0%, Appellant 4' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (c;G.) mvislon Bench M.A.No?11 /2006 /The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, “‘Through its Divisional Manager, Malviya Nagar, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Gouto Bai Wlo Late Pancham Singh aged about 43 years. Kumari Bai Dlo Late Pancham Singh aged about 22 years, Ashok Kumar Slo Late Pancham Singh aged about 18 years Pawan Kumar Slo Late Pancham Singh aged about 20 years Smt. Jugo Bai Wlo Chediram aged about 45 years, AII above respondents are R/o Bandha Tola, Tah. Mohla, District — Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Premlal Slo Bisheshar Ram, Caste - Sinha aged about 28 years, R/o Village - Khuteri, Poiice Station-Somni District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Driver ofVehicie No. C.G. 07/Z.D./2338) Raghunandan Sahu Slo Not Known R/o Patan Road, Utai, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) 8. Ashwani KumarGajendra , Slo Bhikhariram Gajendra R/o Gotatoia, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Owner ofVehicIe No. C.G. 07/Z.D./2338) ‘ u - \ nder : Contd. .2 / XI-Hc—78 ' EW,W,W WW o .M.a...o..2.)/./.aa. x ‘N ‘ Z w V 200 WW(W) ammm mmmm V aamum 95 A07. 2006 AppeHanf by Shri Abhishe Einha, Advocafe. Heard on admission. The appglhn? Insurance- empany has preferred *his appeal under Secfion 173 of the Mow. Vehicie Ac‘l‘ as the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai has assed fhe award of Rs.5,10,000/- and has sewed 'rhe responsibi Hy of saiisfying the above award upon the Insurance-Campany als . 2. The ground on which the appeal has been preferred is that at the time of accident the dec used were traveiiing in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger which i evident from the first information report which has been fiied b the appiicants themselves and as per Secticn 147 of the Mot Vehicle Act no liability can be fastened on the Insurance- ompany for the claims on the application of legal heirs at suc passengers. 3. We have heard the lea ned counsel for the appellant on admission. We have also pe used the impugned award dated 31.3.2oo6./\ ~L" Eh“‘—‘g XI-HC-78 WW,W,W o Wmwiawr) D, _ so far The correcfness af The Fad“ regarding passenger occupying fhe vehicie a1“ the Time of accid Em is concerned, in reply submif'red by fhe Insurance-Company, T fac'i‘ thm‘ fhe deceased-persons were gra‘i‘uifaus passengers mi“ been pieaded, and therefore, no specific issue was fram by 1‘he Tribunal on this count However, learned counsel for appellanfs submiis fhaf a general pleading was made by The insu nee—Company fhaf ihe vehicle was being driven in breach of The p licy condiil'ion aT The relevanT Time, Therefore, The Insurance-Comp ny is noT bound by The award. 4. Issue no.7 was framed y The Tribunal To The effecT ThaT whel'her The vehicle was being driven in breach of policy condiTion issued by The non—applicant No 3 (Insurance-Company) and if so To whaT effecT? Dealing wiTh Thi issue, The CourT below has given a finding To The effecT ThaT The burden of proof of This issue is on The non-applieanT No.3 (In urance—Company). However, The Insurance»Company has noT le any evidence To subsTanTiaTe so as To discharge This onus and on conTrary as per documenT EXPA, iT is evidenT ThaT The non’appl cam No.3 (insuranee—Company) had insured The vehicle and The ins ranoe was valid upTo 21.09.2004 and The nan—applicanT No.1 was ng valid driving licence which was effecTive upTo 16.12.200E and here is a finding To The effecT ThaT -3/ h‘ h e f e e h i mam anW am 311%m , amiavmW ‘wWK m Hi%am §Ka1frawm i 4; The [earned counsel for Lrha appenan‘r does not dispute fhaf XI—HC-78 WW(W) WWW ,3’ WW§WW %3T%H3TI%3T The Insurance-Company has m prove The same. In fhe lighT has been decided againsi‘ The 5. In view of The findi regarding issue No.7. we find The purpose of admission. ar dismissed aT The admission sTag Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra ’ Judge iT even filed The insurance policy To of The above ‘finding, The issue no.7 pe! lam. af The learned Ciaims Tribunal no subsTance in This appeal even for d Therefore, The insTanT appeal is e ifself. ‘ ,i \ ‘Dilip Rao Sdl- saheb Deshmukh a Judge WW,WW,W o ooo.o~o.oooo.o.o.o~oo I