^ ^''" Gf^ i'f IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WI.A. (C) No.- APPELLANT /2009 -%^ 3^'"-1^1 ^ ^^"^.. ..-• •'" . <»•••' ,W" ..q^ <?•' ;y- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ^ DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.-l, MADINA BUILDING, JAIL ROAD, KUTCHERY CHOWK, RAIPUR, DISTRICT- RAIPUR C.G. ^- Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:- 1. 2. SHRAWAN S/0 DEVENDRA CHAUHAN, AGE 31 YRS., RESIDENT OF NAYAGANJ WARD, BHATAPARA, THANA & TAHSIL- BHATAPARA, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C.G.) DEVENDRA S/0 JANAKRAM RADE, AGE 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF JANJGIR, THANA - JANJGIR, DISTRICT - JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) PRESENT ADDRESS WARD, BHATAPARA, RAIPUR C.G. NAYAGANJ DISTRICT - RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS:- 3. MAHENDRA KUMAR S/0 BUDHRAM SAHU, AGE 25 YRS, RESIDENT OF NAYA GANJ WARD, BHATAPARA, THANA & TAH. - BHATAPARA, DISTRICT - RAIPUR C.G. 4. BHAG SING S/0 LATE MALIK SING SALUJA, AGE 65 YRS., RESIDENT OF BALBHADRA WARD BHATAPARA, THANA & TAH. - BHATAPARA, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECJION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 APPEAL VALUED Rs. 1,04,000/- (APPEAL BY INSURANCE) COMPENSATION CLAIMED BEFORE TRIBUNAL Rs. 14,00,000/- AWARDED AMOUNT BY TRIBUNAL Rs. 1,04,000/- ..2. \ .: fo!- / \'o sv^vw K-n* 'tWT 3TI^?f ^>W^> ^~ST •<11<<|CT'4, yill'M'IS, Iqcll'M^ _._^ACO ^,. <^j'^200^ affl^r 'q^A (I'll^iv') wnm^ffig sn^i <?)i*(i<n<tii 'V^i ^ 'fe'^t' <Pq'($i< ^srRm sii^i irwal S.B. Hon'ble Shri JusQce N.K., 69-03-SOW Shri SudhirAgrawal, counsel|orttie appellaRt. Heard. Learned counsel for the app^llant teirly submits ttiat se policy Issued by the appellant/lnsufaneeeompany is for private car package policy and !n view <tf the circular issued by the Company dated 27-11-2009, risk |of the occupant of a car te covered under the policy. Therefoije, he does not want to pre» the appeat on ground No. 2.1 tak^n in the appeal. He further submits that the leamed Tribunal h|®awarded the amount to th® claimant which is shockingly on hig|ier side as no treadng doctor has been examined and in his pla<;e one Dr. Bachhu has been examined. I Leamed counsel for the | appellant admits that ®<e Insurance Company has not obteirfed parmission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for s^ort "the Act*). It is trite lawthatwWtout pertnissi«iunderSection170of the Act, Insurance Company cann^t fite the appeal challenging quantum 'awarded by ttie Tribunal in the ddm case. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, in thje consldered opinion of this Court, the appeal being devoid 4' substance is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 1 Sd/- Noorderastocoste. ^ N.K-Agrawal Judge 5Tre^hT^N%SnTT^,,.:^f'T^IRr—FS/147—2/2010—1,00,000.