FAO No. 2825 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2825 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.05.2010 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant Versus Chanderpati and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) This appeal, by the Insurance Company, is directed against the award dated 20.2.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, vide which the application moved by the claimants, under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, stands allowed. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding, that the accident in question, had taken place due to sole rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. In view of the finding on issue No.1,it was held that the claimants were entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.15,77,600/- (Rupees fifteen lac seventy seven thousand and six hundred only) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The claim was contested by the appellant/Insurance Company, by raising a plea, that respondent No.3 did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, and further that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of the insurance policy. Plea was also raised, that the petition was collusive between the claimants and respondents No.3 and 4 (herein). Onus to prove these issues was on the appellant. However, FAO No. 2825 of 2010 (O&M) -2- at the time of arguments, these issues were not pressed by the appellant. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on issues No.2, 3 and 5 reads as under: - “ISSUES NO.2, 3 AND 5 14. These issues are not pressed during arguments. Onus to prove these issues is upon the respondent- insurance company; but it has led no evidence and, therefore, both these issues are hereby decided against the respondents and in favour of the claimants.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has made an attempt to challenge the award on the question of quantum. This plea is not available to the appellant in view of the bar under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is not in dispute that no application was moved under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. No ground is, therefore, made out to interfere with the award passed. No merit. Dismissed. Office is directed to remit the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) deposited by the appellant, to the learned Executing Court for payment to the claimants. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 19, 2010 R.S.