^^^^^^ ^^6^ "^. i'" |L...._. ^". ^pfe. "; :f^^..^^-i^. '. f ^ .^ •/ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH: BILASPUR Singte Bench: Appellants Non-claimants Respondents Claimant Non claimant Hon'bte Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. M.A.C.No. 373 of 2007 1. Bimal Badai, S/o Shri Vinod Bihari Badai, by caste Namoshudra, aged ^out 34 yeare, r/o P.V.100 Up Tahsit- Bande, Tahsit-Pakhanjoor Distt-Kanker (CG) DriveroftheVehtete 2. Kalicharan, S/o Sukhicharan Mandal, aged abcnjt 60 years, r/o P.V. 100 Up Tahsil-Bande, Tahsil Phakanjoor, Distt. Kanker (CG) Owner of the Vehicte Versus 1. Narayan Majoomdar, S/o Manbhajan Majoomdar, aged about 26 years by Caste Namoshudra, r/o P.V. No.32 Pakhanjoor, present residence of C/o Shanker Pal, T.S. D. Cotony (Kewcte Munda Ward) Jagdalpur, Distt-Baster (CG) 2. Jila Sahakari Krishi aid GraminBank Maryadit Kanker, Distt-Kanker (CG) Through Branch Manager, Jila Sahakari Krishi and Gramin Bank Maryadit Kanker, Distt-Kanker (CG) Higher Rjrchase Agreement 3. United India Insurance Company Ltd Divisional Office Krishna Complex, Firet Floor Kachahari Chowk Raipur, throi^h Branch Man^er Jagdatpur, Distt. Baster (CG) Insurance company 4. Managing Director, M/S Akash H©useof Tractore, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) 5. Managing Director, M/s. ^igar Engineering Works, Sehradawari, Raipur Road Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) Memorandum of misc. aopeal uncter Section 173 of the Motor VeWctes Act Present: Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the appellants. None for respondent No.1. Shri Akhilesh Kumar^counset for respondent No.2. Shri Dashrath Gu^a, counael for respondent No.3 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19.09.2008) ;\ .. This appeal is heard finally today at the stage of admission. 1 ^- (2) The appellants are aggrieved by the award dated 08.09.2006 pa^ed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (henceforth the Tribunat), Jagdalpur in claims case No.234/2003, whereunder compensation of Rs.95,000/- was awarded against the appellants i.e.,driver and owner in an injury case. (3) Brief facts are that on 24.12.2002 a tractor bearing No.DG-06-8972 to which the trolley bearing No.CG^)6-8971 was attached was carrying labourers. At about 4.30 p.m due to rash and negligerrt drivir^ of the saiGl tractor by the appellant No.l/driver, the trolley tumed turtle causing grievous injury and disability to the extent of 55% to the respondert No.l/claimant. (4) It is not in dispute that before the date of accident, the insurance company had sent intimation to the appellant No.2 regardhg canceltation of the policy of the insurance on the ground that cheque for payment of premium had bounced. (5) The sole grourKl urged by the learned counsel for the apj^llants in this appeal is that liability to pay compensation ought to have twen fastened on the respondents No.4 & 5 i.e. the authoriz^l dealers who had sold the tractor trolley to him because the appellant No.2 had paid the amount of premium to them in cash at the time oftaking delivery of the said tractor and trolley. No other ground was urged. (6) It is pertinent to note that in the written statenront, frie sole ground taken by the appellant/owner was not pleaded. In view of the fact that admittedly before the accident, the insurer had already sent intimation to the appetiant regarding cancellation ofthe cover note i^ued by it on the ground that the cheque for paymert of premium had bouwed, ttie Tribunal had rightly exonerated the insurance company, which is also not in dispute in thi® appeal. In the absence of any pleadings as mentioned above and also in view of the fact that the accident had occurred after the canc^llation of the cover note by the insurer, liability to pay compensation was rightly fastened by the Tribunal on the appellants. (7) There is no merit in this appeai, whi<^ is a^cordingly dfemissed at the stage of admission. Priya Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 1\,