s^' t^;:iu HSGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARHATBJLASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAIVI APPELLANT (NON-APPLICANT N0.3) RESPONDENTS fAPPUCANTNO.1) (APPUCANT N0.2) 2. (NON-APPLICANT N0-1} 3 CNON-APPLICANT N0.^r 4 HON'BLE SHRI JAGDISH BHALLA, Ag. CJ. HON'BLE SHRIDILIP RAOSAHEBDESHMUKH, J. Mise. Appeal fC) No. 528 of 2007 Unjted tndia Insurance Company Limited, Through : its Branch .Manager, Branch Office, Rajendra NagarChowk, Bilaspur, (C.G.) VERSUS i Smt. Taj Bee, ;Wd/0 — Late Sher Mohammad @ Lailu, Aged - 40 y6ars, Hasina Bee, D/o Late Sher Mohammad @ Laliu, Aged ~ 25 years, Both are R/0 - Vill. - Kadari, P.0.- Beitara, P.S. —!Ratanpur,* Dlstt. — Bilaspur, (C.G.) Bansilal Yadav, S/0 - Budhram Yadav, aged about 40 years, .R/0 - Viii. - Lotlota, PLS. — Katghora, Distt. - Korba, (C.G:) | M/s. Sarvamangata Construction Company, Through its Proprietor - Shfl Raj Kurnar Agrawai, R/o-106, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Tah. & Distt ~ Korba, AppealunderSection 173 Gf/th8MotorVehiclesAct, 1988 Present: Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellant ORALORDER (Passed on 14 June,2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by Di{ipRaosahebDeshmukh;J.: Heard. . The appellant/ Insurer is aggrieved by the award dated 11-12-2006 '.u. •',, ,.' ^,' 1- '.• " ^ " • ' .:. ' 1 .•1 .' •• ^: ' . /•• 1 " •:\. ..'^••' . • • passed in CIaim^ase No. 26/2006 bytheAdditionaJMotorAccidentCiaims Tribunal,BJIaspurwh^rebythelnsuranceCompanywhil8bejnge^ :^ -?•s I^ -^ its liability to pay compensation vvas ordered to pay compensation first and to recover iater from the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appeiiant did not dispute that the offending vehicie being a heavy^ motorvehide was insured by the appeiiant / Insurer, which was statutoriiy isabie to pay compensation. In this case Giriver of the offending heavy motor vehicie had a yaiid driving license though oniy for light motor vehicle. Learned counsel for the appe11ant has placedjreiiance on National Insyrance Company Limited Vs. Kusym Rai & Others, reported in 2006(2) TAC -1 in which case a!so after exonerating the appellant / Insurer it was ordered to pay compensation first and to recover the same later from the owner ofthe offendsng vehicle. Considering the fact that the vehicle inquestion was a heavy motor vehicle and was also insured under a valid pollcy of insurance and the driver of the offending vehicle aiso possessed a valid driving license though only for light motor vehicie, in our considered opinion, in the facts and ciroumstances of the case learned Tribunal was wholiy justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from its !iabitity to pay compensation whi!e directing it to pay compensation first and to recover the same laterfrQm the owner ofthe vehicle. We find no merit in this appeal. Accordingty, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently I.A.No. 01 forstay also standsdismissed. Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge <f ;< '\