HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU$ M.A. 500 of 2003 & Hoh'ble 5hri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. The Na‘rional Insurance Co. L‘l’d. Branch Jagdalpur, Disf‘r. Basfar (Chhafflsgarh). Versus Appellanf Non-Appiican'r No.3 RawspBndenfs 1. Smf. Mayava‘ri. w/o Hidmamm Mandavi. aged 25 year-s, WO Eazarpam, Koéenar, Tahsil Jagddpurg Disft gasfaF (C53 NON-APPLICANT N02. OWNER 2. Shyam Singh @ Budhmm s/o Devi Singh; Dhakad, aged 25 years, Rio. vmage Maw“ Bha'ra Pujnripnm, RS. Kudunuv, Jagdalpur Tahsil Jagdalpur Disff. Bas'rar- (C.6.) NON-APPLICANT NQ.1. DRIVER 3. Podiyami Bhadru s/o Podiyami faau. cued 38 years Casi'e iviad'iya, WO Tii’epara Bodemar, Police swim Kadema Ta'asi: Jagdalpur, Dis-H. Bnsfar (6.6.) CLAIMANT Above persons are parfies in Claim case No.74/2002 appeai vaiued n+ Rs.30‘OOO/- 4. Podiyami Pandu s/o 'a're Guddi. aged 35 years, Casfe Madiya, We Sukepam Village Bade Bodenar Disff. BasTaF (C3,) CLAIMANT Above respondenf is parties CORAM: Hon’ble Shri SR. Nayak, CJ Applicanf/claiman+ in case No. No.77/2002, appeal valued af Rs.40,000/- Poyami kaya s/o. IaTe Gunge, aged 50 years. 6. Smf. Hadami wife of lafe Karu aged 22 years, 7. Rajman s/o. Karu, aged 3 year-s Through- Minor' mofher- SmTJ—ladami wife of lafe Karu. No.5 1'0 7 are residen'r Pafelpam village Kawadgaon Palice Sfafion, Kafekalyan, Dls‘H'. Dan‘rewada (C.G.) CLAIMANTS . Above responderrrs are parfies applican‘rs/claiman'rs in claim case No.70/2002 , appeal valued u‘l' Rs.2,11,000/-. 5hri Srikumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocafe wi'rh Shri Anand Gupfa, counsel for ‘l'he appellmfs. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17”“ January, 2006) The following oral order of 'ihe Couri' was passed by $.R.NA\/AK, CJ. 1. This common MA. is directed againsf “the award passed by +he Mo'ror Accidenfs Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.) in claim cases No.74/2OOZ, 77/2002 and 70/2002. 2; Having heard fhe learned counsel for The appellanT-Insuranoe Company, we dispose of +his appeal with regard lo all fhe claims. 3. The claim applicafions were opposed by fhe appellanT-Insurance Company on fhe ground fhaf 'rhe driver of 1'he mofor vehicle involved in the accidenf on fhe da'l'e of fhe accidenf did nof have valid and effective licence. . 4. Alfhough 1'he above plea was faken in fhe wriffen sfa‘remem filed by fhe Insurance-Company, 'rhe facf remains 'l'haf if has ufferly failed To prave fhaf plea by producing subsfan'rive Iegal eviden‘ce. If is we" se‘Hled Tha‘r if Insurance Company wan‘l's f0 deny i1's Iiabiii‘ry f0 pay fhe compensafion on fhe above ground, i1- should nof only plead Thaf 'rhe driver of The mofor vehicle involved in The accidenf as on The daTe of accidenT did noT have valid and effecTive license buT also prove ThaT plea by producing subsTanTive legal evidence. Secondly, The MLA.C.T. has recorded a'facTual finding ThaT The moTor vehicle involved in The accidenT was insured by The uppellanT—Insurance Company. This finding is noT seriously conTesTed by The learned counsel for The abpellanT-Insurance Company. 5. The appeal is devoid of meriT. IT is Therefore dismissed. No cosTs. V . l l .[j ii 1‘ Sdl- Sdl- Chief Justice Dilip RaoSaheb Deshmukh i Judge ‘ l i l ,i ll