Y ( y, ^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH JVLAJC) JMo. Kc{ //ioS£^ ®3§isSs^sl APPELLANTS NI»^I ^-: \5[^(°? I'^^^f" ^^ ~v~-f~r 1. Gumsin Singh S/o Baijnath Nishad, aged about 26 years R/o Village f '^ Parsuli P.S. Devri Distt. Durg(CG). ^-"^^ a,.?-- '~\.»&w ^' ^.t^'^ l-l;rL~..y-" ...•••l'WD^-'-"i".fr--" 2. M/s Balod Bus Service, •".^^l^-l-"9 .^*? ...^' Through:- Owner Shiv Kumar Gupta R/o Indira Chowk Balod Distt. Durg (CG). RESPONDENTS ft^^^l^ N^ }/ VERSUS 1. Karan Singh S/o Makhan Singh Sahu aged about 61 years, R/o Village Parsuli P.S. Devri Distt. Durg (CG). 2. The Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited. Pawar House Jonal Office Distt. Durg (CG). IVIISC APPEAL (CLAIIVI) UNDER SECTION 173 OF IVIOTOR VEHICLEACT.1988 -^SI MAiO.Na IAN- Guman Sinah & another ^ SSi Karan Singh & anofher 'PLSCANT l tf: nia*^ ?^i SlUPsJt'.S nuf mgie Bench: Hcn'bEe Mr. N.K.AaanraLAl Shri Vipin Tiv/ari, counsei for the appellants. Shri S.P. Sahu, counset for respondent No.1 Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel No.2/insursnce Company. unnt- oc 18 dav of This is ownsr's appea! against the award datcd 30-12- 2008 passed in Claim Case No.64/2008 by AdditJonaI Motcr Aocideni Ciaims Tribunal, (F.T.C.), Balod, District Durg whereby snd whereunder an amount of Rs.1,03,OOOA has been awardsd in favour of the claimants and as against the owner and driver of the vehicle, exonerating Insurance Cumpany from its ijability to pay compensation. 'ia n! .^' 3f thi IS ic. ifflarrsiari .£.. j ? .iC^ ^S uy ^U^VfflU^S? Uj Li iC? <3p|h Trifauna! has erred In exonerating the jnsurance Company msm Its iiabliify to pay compensstion to the claimants oniy on the ground that the owner of the vehicis has fiied a photo oopy cf the poiicy and not filed its origina!. ,- 'hw fitar!?> iasrnsri ,-niinaia; fhr -hia !; ftt i.iiite aiiaye, .eeiiiiyu vuui.sisi nted the photo copy of the po'icy and submitted that on fhe date of accldsnt, the vehicle was insured. 4. , No other point has been raised by fhe iearned counsel fcr the psrties. ^ [I 5. Having heard iearned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the cass and also In view of the fact that the Insurance Company admits the existence of insurance cover covering the risk of the said vehicie on the date of accident, in {he considered opinion of this Court that the iearned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurance Company only on the sole ground that instead of origjnal, photo copy of the policy has been fjled by the appellant. in such s case, it is aiso the duty of thi Insurance Company to verify and file the correct and certified copy of the insurance policy. 6. Therefore, the said award not being sustainabie in lav» deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside, so far as the iabjlity Qf insurance Company is concemed, the tnsurance Company is a!so heid Jiabie to pay compensation to the ctaimants. 7. in the result, the appeal Is ailowed. The award passed by jearned Tribuna! is modified to the extent as above snd it is directed that respondent No.2/lnsurance Company is also 'iabie to pay compensstion to the claimanfs jointly and severally aiong with the appeliant and driver of the vehlcle. St.is further directed that the Insurance Company shall deposit the amount of award berore the Tribunai within a period of three months. The amount deposited by the appellant as mandatory deposit under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, shail be refunded to the appe!!ant if aiready not disbursed to the claimants. —-— No order as to costs. ..__'"'"'" N.K.Agrawai,. ,j •e Kv-