^r^ v IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH .c^. MISC. APPEAL N0. " 7 OF 2006 SingI&Bench w- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT. 1923 Appellant Non-Applicant No. 3 ^' United India Insurance Company, through the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company, Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) Versus Respondents / 1- %.?"Y.- ^y f€ ^' 3. ^"' '<^- Deepa @ Hardeep Singh, S/o Mahattar Singh, aged about 38 years, Caste - Sikh (Driver), R/o Gangamundapara, Jagdalpur (CG) Mohan Chahil, S/o Mahattar Singh, (Vehicle Owner) R/o Gangamundapra, Jagdatpur (CG) (Non-applicants No. l & 2) Smt. Sadhna Yadav, W/o Late Premlal Yadav, aged about 35 years, Caste - Raut, Ku. Durga Yadav, D/o Late Premlal Yadav, aged about 19 years Manoj Yadav, S/o Late Premlal Yadav, aged about 15 years (Minor thrbugh mother) All R/o Behind Mahatma Gandhi School, Gangamundapara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) (Claimants) CLAIM IN APF^EAL FORSETTING ASIDE THE AWARD VALUED AT RS.^76,255 FRUPEES TWO LACS SEVENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE ONLY -iCft^4A,^^;)''' 4. ^ ^ XI-HC-78 3TI^T ^T f^-Tt^ :W^?T ^, ^. r. +11H^I »»*11<sh 3^ ^i^Kn^, ^Tn^4i<o, f®t<nw^< •/• t ^•rN<2ar^ ^y ^y-r^c • • • • • JLJJI 3TT^?Tq^7 (yii^ct^) ^RTTW^fN'^T^T 11.09.2006 Shri SanjayS. Agrawal, l^arned counsel for the appeIlanVlnsurance Company. Heard on admission. The appeilant has Section 30 ofthe Workmen's.i 2J6255/- has been passed , respondents for the accident Premial, driver ofthevehicie inv pref^rred this misceilaneous appeai under Cclmpensation Act, 1923 as the award of Rs. [against the appeliant in favour of the |dated 10.8.2005 resulting in death of >lved in the accident. Learned counsei for the ^ question of iaw involved for under the facts and circumstank couid be heid liable, particulary being driven by fr^vo drivers ins| policy? Learned counsel for the dispute that the vehicie in questij view of the admitted position th^ the insurance policy which dear| a single person, therefore, the a| arises for adjudication of this ap^eai I have heard learned coi the impugned award passed by <=hi<M?<n41ri wr^ff ^'te^ <fa^i< ^3^TT3:n^T ^ppellant submits that the only substantial adjpdication of this appeai is that - whether ^es of the case the insurance Company when the aileged offending vehicie was tead of one in violation of the insurance lappeliant further submits that it is not in \pn was being driven by two drivers and in vehicle was being driven in violation of |y states that the vehicle is to be driven by ?ove proposed substantial question of law |insel for the appeliant and have perused flhe learned Claims Tribunal. XI-HC-78 HIH^tl »»+1|ch 7S[ ^WW^, S$Ti1-H<l<o, fc|<'tiy^< . . I.V.f.l.v*^ •.»^./ . . .. ^-- 209 ^ 3TI^T tra^? (^qt^^^&T) 3TI^T^)T^i<=h r3TT??T$h^l<=b c- ^art ^RTTW ^Tf?cT 3:TT^T -2- <-' ^/ Learned Tribunal whiie det a.bove objection has cleariy held t\ as the owner has engaged two d( objected to by the Insurance Comj relates to the legal heirs of on| application for compensation arisi|ig other driver, nor any petition ?s ^ finding of the learned Tribunal is ^trh the evidence available before the ;iding issue No. 6 and adjudicating the lat this objection couid not be sustained t-ivers for convenience, which cannot be >any since the compensation appiication |y one deceased driver ahd no other outofthis accident has been fited by ^ending in any other Court. The above ^trictly in accordance with law and as per "ribunaj. !n the light of abov^, appeliant/Insurance Company beijng dismissed at the motion stage itse| Consequently, M.C.P.No. 1p72/06 stands disposed of. chi<M?d41-i wr^ff ^f te^t <T^<-<ii< ^3Tf^T3:TT^T the appeal preferred by the devoid of substance deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O. ffi