© @ CW lN THE HIG‘ ”OURT Or JUDICATUPE AT BILASWR (C G ) w.P. W7¢¢ /2oo3/ ‘ ' ational Insurance Co. ltd. :ET ITIONER g .. .. NON3- APPLICANT station road Durg, Branch Durg (C.G.) Versus REsmNDENTS :— l. Ashak Kumar s/c Ramnarayan i PPLICANTS Gautam , aged 31 years, R/a ‘ back o£ sheetla temple, above r shop of Shanker Lal Chendraker, Baiga para, Durg Distt. Durg (c.G.). RESPONDENTS,» a- §. Dayashankar Agrawal, s/o Shri Krishna Copal Agrawal, aged 48 yearé (truck — owner) Rampyare , s/o Not kncwn, (Driver) aged 45 years, c/o Dayashankar E‘grawal Both R/o 37/3 Nehru Nagar East Bhilai Nagar Distt. Durg (C.G.) Beniram sahu , s/o Shri Goverahan , Aged 43 years} i (Tempo—Owner) R/e Polsai Para Burg Distt. Durg (C.G.). No‘N - AP ’ICANTS Seventh Additional Motor W‘ accident claims TriBiinal u gfast truck courts) urg, Distt. (C‘G ) N UNDER ARTICLES 226 224% CONSTITUTION V“ 9E INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF MANDAMUS PROHIBITQN AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRIT AN—D DIRECTION OR DIRECTION- ‘ 4c l) A‘s MENTIONED ABOVE IN CASUE TITLE. 2) AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN SASUE TITLE- 3) PARTICULARS OF RESFONBEBES ORDERIEO-fiINST WHICH THE ?ETI- -TION IE MADE. V’ order n9 58/2003(claim case) annexure P :1 dateé f/K e3! A l/ D O Writ Petition No.1970 ef 2003 Va 811$ Ashok Kama: and other So POST Fm mDE ON 10 J f 1 Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge National Insurance Co. Ltd.. th July . 2003 . WSW-“W4 HIGH com? OF JUDICATtRE CEEmT'I‘ISGIRH: BILAsPtR @ I-EGH com? OF JtmICATlRE CI‘EIATTISGARH: BILASPW SINGLE BmCI-I: mN'BLE 3m L.C.BHADOO, J Writ petition No.1970 of 2003 National Insxr‘ance c0.Ltd.. VEI' $3.18 Ashok Kumar and others. Presazts - Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta. Advccate for the petitioner. O R D E R (Passed on (0% July. 2003) Bythis writ petition tinder Articles 226 5: 227 of the ¢onstitution of India. the petitioner company has challenged the order dated 3lst March. 2003, passed by the seventh Addi tional Meter Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast 'Iradc Court). Durg. by which the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of 3.4 .900/- in favour of respondaqt No.1 and against the petitioner. respondent No.2 the owner of the trudc and respondent No.3 the driver of the truck. jointly and separately. 'v: : ‘ 20 The main grievance of the petitioner company in this petition is that respondent No.3 who was driving the truck bearing registration No.CIR/8545 at the time of the accident was not in possession of a valid driving licence and he was in possession of a forged and fake licence. Therefore, the Tribunal without considering this fact has wrongltz awarded the compensation. / / 3. The perusal of the a'der of the learned Tribunal shows that in Pata 16. the Tribunal has considered this aspect and reached te the conclusion that the licence in question Le. licence No.R.75228 was renewed by the R.'r.o. Raipur and the R.‘r.o. Raipur issued the certified copy of the same. This has been proved by a witness Sanjay Agrawal. Relying on the evidence and the renewal of the licence by the R.‘r.0. Raiplr. the learned Tribunal reached to the conclusion that respondent No.3 was in possession of a valid driving licence. Therefore. it cannot be said that the learned iribunel has not considered this aspect while passing the award and the learned Tribunal after giving the valid reasons has not acceeded to the argument of the company. 4. Therefore, I am cf the opinion that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned award and the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, there is no reason before this Court to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal.- 59 In the result, this petition is without force and the same is accordingly. disnissed. x Su‘l ' ‘ \ C.B‘ ”d: L. x