l (”‘1 ‘U m x U1 3» n an m :5 'wn/y —. ihf : g ( ” .. )9 JA 5‘ , yyM * ~. W» HFGH COURT OF CHHK§THSGARH AT EKASPUR MISC. liPPEAL NO. 533 OF 2603 APPELLANT : Orientak Insurance Compa‘ny NON-APPLECAMT Versus RESPONDENT3 : Jethri Bai and others. CLAIMANTS APPEAL UNDER SECTJQN 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 $Ena§e Eencf‘e: Hon’bie $31!”: MK. AqarwaE. J. ‘Prgseni : ShriSudhir AgrawaLcounseHorihe appei§ani ‘- ORAL ORDER 7 (Passed "n 14th day af Fabwary, 2M1) This is insurer’s appea! med against the §mpugned award dated 2241-2002, passed by 1V Addiiionai Moior Acc§deni Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.}, Raigarh (for short ‘the Tribunai’) in Claim Case Na. 50/2002 whereby and whereundey an amoum of Re.64,600/— has been awarded in favour of the ciaimants homing the appellant/Insurance Company Habie for its payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that .on 1609-1997, deceased Nanké Dau white returning from Salhepali‘ the offendEng vehicie “Ruck bearing registratEon No. C.P.$. Q671, which was being driven by respondent No.4 herein rashiy and negiigentiy, dashed him as a resuit of which he died on the spot. d. The cfaimants had fiied a petition before the Tribunai under Ruie 220(1) of the Motor Vehicies Act (for short ‘the Act’) ciaiming a totai compensation of Rs.9,90,0GO/— for the death of the deceased. ,- 4. The §eamed Tribunai on a close scrutiny of evidence ‘ed, materia! piaced &nd submissions made by the pames, heBd that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable for payment of sompensaiion to the ciaimants and rejected the pkea regarding §nvalidity of the licence, raised by the appeliant. 5. Learned counsel for the appertant would submit that since the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any vaiid ‘ . Eicence to drive the said vehicie, therefore, the teamed Tribunai has wrangly held the appellantflnsurance Company responsibie tor payment of compensatten to the ctatmants. 6. l have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned award and the record of the Tribunal. 7: As per record of the Tribunal, owner of the vehicle has filed particulars of the licence issued by licensing authority, Durg vide Ex. D-t which shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was hoiding the valid and effective driving iicense to drive the Truck in question. Nothing has been brought on record that the above particulars are not correct. 8. in view of the above, i do not find any substance in the appeai, therefore, the appeal being devoid of merits, is iiabie to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs/,/ \_ , I Sd/e Kvr l l c—t i N. K- Agarwa‘ Judge //