-"^ ^p IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD1CATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH ^. . « »- gng|»BencK MISC. APPEAL N0. b5 OF 2006 OU$A w" MISCELLANEOUg APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173. MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT N0. 3 ..^' RESPONDENTS 1. ^" 2. ^United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Krishna Complex, Kachehari Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versus Satish S/o Asdeo, Tractor Driver, aged about 24 years, Asdeo Prasad, S/o Bhagatram Naorange, aged a bout 60 years '^/ (Both R/o Village - Murkuta, Tehsil & P.S. Navagarh, Distt. Durg (CG) VEHICLE OWNER (Non-ADDlicants No. 1 & 2) 3. Chandan Bai Wd/o Shiv Prasad, aged about 37 years, R/o Village - Chaklakunda, Tensil & P.S. Navagarh, Distt. Durg (CG) (SECOND WIFE OF DECEASED) (Non Applicant No. 4) 4. Dhanittar, S/o Bishambhar Satnami, aged about 75 years 5. Dukalabai, W/o Dhanittar, aged about 70 years 6. Doman, S/o Shiv Prasad, aged about 19 years (Handicapped) 7. Vinod S/o Shiv Prasad, aged about 12 years (Handicapped by both legs) 8. Indira Kumar S/o Shiv Prasad, aged about 9 years ,9. Ishwar, S/o Shiv Prasad, aged about 7 years 10. Maharani D/o Shiv Prasad, aged about 6 years (Sl. No. 7 to 10 Minorthrough elder brother Sl. No. 3 Doman S/o Shiv Prasad, aged about 19years) ' ^ (Sl. No. 4to 10 - R/o Village - Ghakla Kunda, P.S. Tehsil - Navagarh, Distt. Durg (CG) (Sl. No. 4 to 10 - Claimants) CLAIM IN APPEAL FOR SETTING ASIDE AND/OR MODIFICATRION OF THE AWARD XI-HC-78 HI+KII a»*iicr» 3^''<1|*1|C1<4, ^•Hll<o, fs|dl'y^< ^ ^^.^. Y^/^ ^200 t5T^5<cb (<lq^(s<^) 3TI^T^TR^i<=h cf^n"3n^T$h^i<=h —/ ^TTW^TCT^T 11.9.2006 Shri Sanjay S. Agrawa!, learn^d counsei for the appeiiant, Heard on admission. thus This appeal has been prel|erred impugned award dated 29/3/2006 p| Accident Ciaims Tribuna! Bemetara appeilant/lnsurance Company has amount, Learned counse! for the app^l that at the time of accident the dei breach of the poiicy condition and to have exonerated the appeiiant Insjuranc The tribunai has not exon^r recording a flnding that the insuranc^ the timet of accident the vehicie ^ agricuiturai purposes. So far as the liabi!ity of the In^ passenger who was occupying th( concerned the same has been coi| judgment of the Supreme Court i|i Orientai Insurance Co. Ltd. reoorted held that cn this ground also th^ exonerated. Considering the facts and above mentioned judgment of the Silipreme chl^fd^t^ WMf ^ te^t <f^^l< ^3Tf^q"3:TT^T by the appellant against the assed by the learned Additionai Motor |n Ciaim Case No. 72/05 by which the |)een heid iiabie to satisfy the award tllant submits that there is no dispute [^eased was occupying the Tractor in the learned Ciaims Tribunai ought ;|urance Company. ^rated the Insurance Company by Company has faiied to prove that at |yas being used on hire and not for ^urance Company for the death of the Tractor at the time of accident is ^sidered and piacing reliance to the the matter of B.V. Naaaraiu Vs. in (1996) 4 SCC 647 it has been I<1 insurance Company couid notbe cirfcumstances of the case and also the Court, the Tribuna! has rightiy XI-HC-78 ^n^T^TRprf^ ^cTSTT 3TT^T ^HT^ <v( lv. ^ (h jfy" o€ HIH^II ^WT^l 3^T ^TraT^PT, ^NFT^, [®1<ni<1^< y^i^^:^/^^200 311^1 ^^ch (^G<I^G<^&T) ^RTTW ;Frf?cf ^TI^T rejected the objection of the a^pellant and fastened the iiabiiity on the Insurance Company. Thus the impugned av^ard judgment of the Apex Court interference from this Court. Accordingiy the appea! fc|ei the motion stage itse!f. is strictly in accordance with the and therefore, it does not require any eing devoid of substance is dismissed at chl^lfd^H WT^f ^ te^t <^1< ^3Tf^R'3:TT^T Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.