.i-.i-xflsy n,^, Single Bench: Hon'bie Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. .A.C No. 638 of 2006 1 2. 3. 5. 1. 2. 3. Mukhdev Singh, Son of Shri Ramdha Singh, aged about 40 years, Resident of Viiiage Amera, police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja (CG) Chamru Ram, Son of Shri Bhousa Ram, aged about 30 years, Ranjan Ram, Son of Shrl Lakhan Ram, aged about 26years. Duhan Ram, Son of Shri Genda Ram, aged about 55 years; Anand Ram, Son of Shri Kasi Ram, aged about 30 years The appeliant No.2 to 5 are residents of Village Amera, Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja (CG) (Owners of the offending vehicle) Mohan Ram, Son of Shri Genda Ram, By Caste Gond, aged about 40 years, Occupation Agricutture, Resident of Viilage Taperkela, Poiice Station Lakhanpur, Distnct Satyanarayan Singh, Son of Shri Dharampa! Singh, aged about 2S years, Occupation Dirver, Resident of Village Taperkela, Pollce Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja (CG) District Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Devetopment Bank, Branch Udaipur, District Surguja (CG) (Fsnancer of the offending vehicie) United India insurance Company Limited, branch Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) (insurer of the offending vehicle) F Memorandum of the apDeaLynder ^Sectjon 173 12) of the Mofor B ^ Present: Shri Sushil Dubey, counsel for the appellants. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for therespondent No.4. ORALORDER (Passed on 5th day of August, 2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appellants are aggrieved by order dated 18.09.2006 passed in ciaims case No.13/2004 by the 1 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (henceforth the 'Tribunai') Surguja, whereby whiie exonerating the respondent No.3 and 4 i,e. Surguja District Co- operative Agricuiture and Rural Development Bank, Branch Udaipur, District Surguja and The United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Ambikapur, District Surguja, liability to pay compensation was fastened on the appeliants i.e. owner of Tractor bearing No. M.P.27/B/3886 and Trolley MP.27/B/3887 (henceforth the 'Tractor and Trolley). (3) Learned counsel for t'ne appeilant did not dispute the following facts in this appeal:- A. that, the Tractor and Troliey were not insured on the date of accident, B. that, the ap.Deliants were the re.gistered owners of the tractor and trolley on the date of accident, C. that, the appellants were in effective control and possession of the Tractor on the date of accident,.. D. that, death of Viphai Ram occurred as a resuit of the accident from the Tractor and Troiley and E. quantum of compensation awardsd by th®Tribuna! isalso notin dispute. (4) The soie ground urgeci by the learned counsel for the appeilant in this appeal is that since the Tracfor and Troliey was purchased by the appellants after obtaining a loan from respondent No.3 and the appellants were paying instaliments, liability to pay compensation ^ ought to have been fastened on the respondent No-3 and not on the appellants. (5) The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants has no merit in view of the admitted facts and is liable for outright rejection. (6) In view of the facts admitted by the learned counsel for the appeliant in this appeal, the award passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with. (7) In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed, at the stage of admission. Priya (8) !n view of the above, M.C.P. No.2308/2006 for grant of stay stands disposed of. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge y'T~-