BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.GJ M.A.(C) N0.3-^ /2006 Sif &1 APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT.NO, ^^ ^K-^ p' >••?•"' ^yl ^^' ^y ..•• <"' -'^••'' ^iy RESPONDENTS APPLICANT f^^ NON-APPLICANT N0.1 2. Arait Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri B.M. Sharma, about 35 years, R/o. Bhaiyathan, P.S. 85 PO Bhaiyathan, Tah. Surajpur, Dist Surguja (C.G.) (OWNERjl VERSUS Kalicharan, S/o. Shri Sukhlal aged about 30 years, Caste - Kewat, R/o. village Harrapara, PO & P.S. Bhaiyathan, Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) (CLAIMANT) United India Insurance Coinpany Lrmited, Branch Office Near Ram Mandir, Ainbikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (INSURER) NON-APPLICANT N0.2 AA^A/ Ramesh Kumar Tiwari, son of Shri Anjani Prasad Tiwari, aged about 22 years, resident of village Jamdi, PO Bhaiyathan Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (DRIVER) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 XI-HC-78 sn^T^ri^iN; cW311^TshH|cb +<IHMISb*11^ 3^ -*iwm<f, ®Tn'M'is,Ridiyy .^:.A'&).&3.^ 200^ 31T^?T<<ach (l^l?^cl<^!iT) BTdTWErfN 3TI^T erroiteoiB 15-11-Z006 Shri A.K.Shukki, leapned coun< Heapd on admission. The only point urged by the 1his Miscellaneous ^ppeal preferre<f Motor /lccident Clams Tribunal adduced by -t+ie appellant and •there was a breach of policy by -the 1-earned counsel for the facts:- (.A) That ttie appellant was iti^ Nuniiep-C.e.-l5/Z&/0680| 15-07-2004. (B) Thattheaforesaidvehicl+ respondent No.2/[nst«'anc|e (O That •fhe respondent No.( fated jeep which turned injuries due te accident. Learned counsel has while certified eopy of -the stutement Investigator i4noop Mehta for -tfie Ijt pecord. Having considered rmA statement of <<noop Mehta N.<<[ contention of learned counsel for tht +iiifci<n-i tiiHriTfffei^ <Ri«i< ¥3rf^IT3n^T |el fw -ttie appellant. |earned couteel for •the appellant in by -the Ownep is ttiat ttie learned Failed to appreciate -fhe evidence [TOi^eotBly came to •ttie conclysion that Owner. app|sllant did not dispute -the following otnier of Jeep bearing Registration on •the date of acddent i.e. was insured for privute use by the Company. Kalicharan mas trwelling in rtie ill- Iturtle on 18-07-2004 and siBtained fnaking submission referred to •the of i(u"ured Kalicharan and the (isuwnce Company which are token on siftmissions and after perusing •the W.-l and Kalicharan AM.-l. *e appellant is liafcle to be rejected, r"w XI-HC-78 HI*<ClT'EbHT^ T5? -^WM^, ®T(1«'IS,fsldltiy ..h-.^jC,<?/)."o..?.'°l'W[ 200 lo sn^T^iTf^TRT a2n'3TI^Tsb1 \^- ^ I'-" sn^yr tia<*> (lyi4<!f<^iiT) TOnw dfscT snSsr —2_ »hl<lf(1<11-l ^Wvfi if tS^S! <KlW{ ^isrf^R'an^r The Insurer has trftep conducti'ng ttie enquipy through inveatgator Anoop Meh-tu atso adduced his testjn|ony iriiich established that •the Jesp bearing R^isfration hAnnbep-CA-|15/Z&/0680 was being iced for carrying passenger for hire at -the ti^ne of 1+ie accident. The admission by rtAipal A.W.-2 in pcra-9 of his testi|nony that he had booked -ttie vehicle belonging to the appellant/owner f( Chainpur and the fact that no ex| appellant for the presence of Kalfch^ran in the ill-fated jeep at -ttie time of accident leaves no room for an^ being used for hire and -ttie iryured fated jeep as a passenger. In •this vi Ir dmpping his daighter to Village- ilanation has been offered by 1tie doiAt that tiie il^fated jeep was Katicharan iffas trwelling in the ilt- w of the matt'er. -fhe fearned fflotop ^ccident Claims Tribunal has rightl^ held •that •ttiere was a breach of policy by the owner of the vehic|le while fastening liability to pay compensation on -ttie cypellant. As a result, this Miscelkitfeois ^ppeal (C) No.363/2006 ia dismissed aa being devoid of merit a-( the stcge of admission. In view of above, M.(C.)P.Nc| stands dispiaed of. Certified copy as per rules. .1877/2006 for grant of stay also Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ••3»»-" P.T.O.