PETITIONERI N.A.No.3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITtON (227) NO. 3297 OF 2008 New India msutance Company Ltd., through the Branch Manager, 2" Floor, Raipur Development Authority Bhawan, Bajrang Market. GE Road, Raipur, through Diw'sional Manager, Divisional Office, New lndia Insurance Co. Ltd., Biiaspur (CG). Versus 1, Smt Kewra Bai, Wd/o Firangi Yadav, aged about 60 years. caste Rawat, occupation Labour. resident of village Baargaan, PS & Tah. Berla, Dislt. Durg (CG). Appiicant 2, Punau Ram. aged about 30 years, son of Shrl Anjore Das Dhtuw, occupation — Vehicle Driver, R/o vill. Rawa, P.S. Arjuni, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). N.A.No. 1 3. Parmanand Verma, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Khoob Ram Verma, occupation — vehicle owner, caste Kurmi, R/o vill. Girendra, PS, Tah. and Distt. Raipur(CG). N.A.No.2 (Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: 'Hon’ble shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present : Shri AliéAsgar, counsel for the petitionerllnsurance Company. RTS E$PONDEN ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 18‘“ day of August, 2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/lnsurance Company submits that the impugned award dated 28-2-2008 (Annexure—P/1) passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Durg, is bad on account of the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured. He also submits that the driver of the vehicle was also not having possession of the valid licence. 2) The Tribunal after hearing all the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner/Insurance Company has failed to establish that the vehicle invotved in the accident was not insured. The Tribunal has further held that this is the responsibility of the Insurance Company to establish that there was no insurance at all or the vehicle concerned was not insured with the petitioner/Insurance Company. With regard t0 driving Iicence, enquiry was made and the Regional Transpon Oflieer, Raipur, submitted that the driving licence was not issued fmm the ofHce of Regional Transport Omcer. 3) Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that no appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees. The purpose seems to be laudable, as for grant of less than Rs.10,000/- the complainant should not be dragged to the Court. 4) Be that as it may, since the amount of compensation involved is only an amount of Rsr1,000/-, it is not necessary to go into the aspect that whether the driver was not in possession of the valid driving licence. This court does not exercise writ jurisdiction only, but is a court of equity also. 5) This court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the court below, except in such cases where perversity. illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 6) Having regard to the facts situation of the case, wherein only a sum of Rs.1 ,OOOI- has heen awarded to the injured person, it is not necessary to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 7) In view of the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. 8) Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of. K \// Sal Agit‘ww.‘ ‘ i . Sa‘is" suége . j;ar " t . ’*