Verws g REPONDENT : f1. a Hemlata Sahu, 18 yeam, /G / wman ' ‘ ‘ u ‘ W ¢ (\Dzo Jajkishan Sam,“ CasteTeli, t Occujjatioii — Teachjiig (Tailoring), . R/c Palsoda, RS. Koran Tehsil & Dietici — Kemker (CG). 2: Bnij Bhushan Nagvanshi, 50 yams, RES?ONDENT / k S/Q Nah3§ Singh Cas' a ~ Gami ,w " \Vr?‘$- Rfa Famiai‘i, PS 3iiavaf .~‘ w “. “ugh 'sw" 3~px§§$ .. Q \. v Dismck — Dhamtati {CG} ' ¢ W n ‘ § 1-H?! iel‘” RES?ONDENT Qa— 3;§ Yogegh Kmnar, //Defendant N02 Sfa Mulctaxmnd, Caste — Pam’ka, Rfo Amapam, Kankar (CG). / —Driver— APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN 173 OF THE EAOTOR VEHICLES ACT; 1983 ‘ P? ' "Am—"m“...‘ww ‘ "E a " 6AW ,/ l YN THE HIGE-i COURT OF CHHAHISG£RH AT BHASPUR E Mm appeal Na / 0 ‘7 ‘xgzm giv§giaa §3smzh J¥FEEQA¥T§ @iisenmE hmmwice Qazxgwemy Mai, l Ewwidant Na?) Dhazfxtarg thmugh &vi$i<mal Gif‘im, ‘ Biiaspur (C33,). (2) The claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.1 ,22,000I— . The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the ground that on the date of accident the driver was having a ieamer’s license; therefore the insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. ln para 13 of the impugned award the learned Ctalme Tribunal has observed that the learners license was effective rrom 21-1e1998 to 2004—1999 and rater on it vias renewed from 20-08~2000 to 224 2-2002 and in the meanwhile a permanent driving iicense was issued in favour of driver l respondent Not 3 by (Ex. Dl‘l) ‘ on 20-1 1~2001. The accident took place on 21 438-2001. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BMSPUR Single Bench: Hon’bie Shri Jgstice Prashgm Kumar Mishra MA. No.1os of 20M ‘ Oriental Insurance Company L. f PPELLANT Vus ers I Hemlat Sahu and others. MISCELLANEOUS AP@ UNDER §ECTION 173 OF £Q!OR ‘ V§HICLE ACT, 1W8 $ri $hailendra sharma, c6unsel for the appellant. cnsel 8r?Manoj for Chouhan, respondents Advocate o. 1 8. appealing 2. on behalf o hl N. , ou n N “ f Sr R Jha None for responden No. 3. t a RAL ORD (23.05.2910) Heard. RN (3) The Tribunal has also recorded a finding in para 14 of the impugned award that the insurance policy (Ex. Pif) contains a recital that a person carrying valid learners license snail aiso be entitled to drive the vehicle. { A td ...‘. a J ‘ h o ER ~zy {4} Nothing has been put forth or brought on record by the appellant to as§ail the said finding recorded by the TribunaL It is thus found that , the driver who was having a learner’s license was entitled to drive the offending vehicte. (5)No other point has been urged in course of argument. (6) iThis appeal is devoid of any substance and is hereby dismissed. § ‘ Sd/- Prash’ant Kumhr Mishra Judge