? PAQE NoJ :aa'«("BMX'.&t-a.Ka SttiS^<.-^sy^-; jy.yy BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No.CT^ /2009 !!nn Hppf-B APPELLANT DEFENDANT N0.3v , c, ^^•\^ ^ :1. ^- IFFCO- TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, through the Branch Manager, Bilaspur(C.G.) ^ ^.';?.:"5^'T ^^•" A RESPONDENT N0.1 CLAIMANT N0. 1 RESPONDENT N0.2 CLAIMANT N0. 2 RESPONDENT N0.3 CLAIMANTNO. 3 VERSUS 1. Smt Rajmani Mahato, Aged about 43 years , W/o Late Rajkumar Mahato. 2. Rohit Kumar Mahato, Aged about 22 years, S/o Late Rajkumar Mahato 3. Sohit Kumar Mahato, Aged about 20 years, S/o Late Rajkumar Mahato. All R/o - Village - Ratanpur, Tah.- Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Dilbodh, Aged about 25 years S/o Surjan, R/o Pratap General Stores, Jhjriatola, District- Anuppur (M.P.). 5. Vijay Kumar Singh, Aged about 27years S/o A.Singh, R/o New Rajnagar, District- Anuppur (M.P.). 6. Smt Chandrakala Davi, W/o Late Sitaram Mahato, Village & post - Taripal, P.S.-Chuklia, Dist.-Uttar Diwajpur(W.B.). MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF RESPONDENT N0.4 DEFANDANT N0.1 RESPONDENT N0.5 DEFANDANT N0.2 RESPONDENT N0.6 DEFANDANT N0.3 Im |0 \73 |< Im 1> 10 1-1 1<P 100 100 K ^ !1 t^j y 1 r-i^ I K< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.1586 of 2009 ADpella^nt versus Respondents Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited -.Smt. Rajmani Mahato and others Present: Shri Y.S.Thakur, counsel for the appellant. Shri N.P.Chandravanshi and Smt. B. Kashyap, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. None for other respondents. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passedon8thMarch,2011) Per I.M. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 7-8-2009 passed by the 1 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.51/2008. 3. Case of the claimants, as stated in the claim petition, is that on the date of accident, i.e., 5-1-2008, deceasedRajkumar Mahato was coming from Khongapani Bijuri driving a scooter on his side in balanced speed. As soon as /the deceased reached Village Parsapani Nandgaon, at that time, a motor cycle Hero Honda SpierLdor bearing registration No.CG 16 D 1128, being driven by non-claimant Dilbodh rashly and negligently, dashed the scooter on '%.. ^^t^^^ % ^ ^^ its back, as a result of which, the scooter got uncontrolled and fell down. Rajkumar Mahato died on the spot in the accident. The incident wasreported to the Police Station Bijuri. The claimants, i.e., wife and sons of the deceased preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.41,59,960/-. 4 . The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.19,08,700/- in favour of the claimants holding liability to satisfy the award on non-claimants No.1 to 3 jointly or severally. 5. The appellanVinsurance company has not got permission under Section 170 of the Act, therefore, the insurance company cannot challenge the quantum fixed by the Claims Tribunal. Further, with regard to the liability, the only point raised before this Court is that the driver of the motor cycle was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. However, no evidence has been adduced by the insurance company in support thereof. On the other 'hand, the claimants have filed a certificate of the licensing authority which shows that the driver Dilbodh son of Surjan was issued a driving licence by the licensing authority Additional R.T.0., Ambikapur on 23-4-2005 for driving motor cycle with gear and LMV which is effective till 22-4-2025, i.e., for 20 years. The vehicle jnvolved was undisputedly Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No.CG 16 D 1128, therefore, it cannot be said that the driver of the motor cycle was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date ofaccident, i.e., 5-1-2008. :^s^ 6. In view of the above, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company is unsustainable. 7. In the result, the miscellaneous appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs^_ —-?—^ Gopal Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge