^-^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU_R_CCGJ M.A. fC) N0.50t\ OF 2007 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS MMANTS ^phaiyalal Son of Shri Gondal, aged about 50 years, Resident of Village Budar, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). VERSUS / 1. ^ Sushila Widow of LateShri Suresh, aged about 27 years; 2.--, Babita D/o Late Shri Suresh, aged f^ about 06 years, Minor through her natural guardian mother Respondent No.l; 3.,J^ Rahul Son of Late Shri Suresh, aged 'about 4 1/2 years, Minor through his natural guardian mother.Respondent No.l; 4.,.h> Akash Son of Late Shri Suresh, '(- aged about 2 1/2 years, Minor through his natural guardian mother Respondent No.l; ^. ^) Kunjal Ram Son of Lavkan, aged about 55 years; 6,<^ Lakhpat Wife of Shri Kunjal Ram, aged about 53 years; v^r l^ All residents of Village Aagastpur, Police Station and Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). ^^ United India Insurance Company limited, Through: The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Near Ram Mandir, Ambjkapur, District Surguja (C.G.). MEMO OFAPPEAL UNDER SECTION173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLEACT/1988 c. HI&M OF CHHATTIS^RH AT BILASPUR &IVISION BENCH; HON'BLE MR.I.M.QUDDUSI & MR. PRASH^NT KUMAR MISHRA. JJ. ^ppeiJant Rsspondsnts M.AfcWg.304/2007 Bhaiydal' Vs Sushila& others Mr< OP. yaday, Advocate for the appelJant, Mr< A,ohosh, ^dvocate for the respondents No.l to 6 [r. bashrath ^upta, Advocate for thc respondent No.7, ORbER(OraSy (l3trlApril, 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. The appellant-owner has filed this misce!l<3neous Gppeal against 1+ie impuaned award dated 30.4-2005 by th©leamed2"d Additional Motor Accldent Ciaims Trjbunai, Surajpur, bistrict Surquja (CS) (for brevity ith©Ciaims Tnbunar) m Ciaim Case No.40/2003 (Sushita & others Vs. Bhaiyalal & another) allowing the claim aDDlication of the claimants, awarding a sum of Rs.6,19,000/- as compensatioh and fastening liability bn the appeliant herein. 2. A crQSS-ob.jection has also been filed by the respondent No.l herein for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably with direction to the respondent Insurance Company to pay the amount of compen^stipn. 3. Leamed claims Tribunai has passed a common award dated 30A2005 in Ciaim -Cases No.39/03 (Sushila & others Vs. BhdyaIaJ & another) & 40/03 (Anuradha & others Vs. Bhaivaiai & another) wherein on the facts situatJQn and the evidence on record, Ciaim Case No.39/03 was disrnjssed and Ciaim Case No.40/03 was aJlowed, as mentioned in Para-1 ofthisord'er. If is also to be noticed that ag^jnst the dismissa! of CIaim Case No.39/03 an appeai bearina A4.A. No.ll6o/05 was fiied' by the ciaimoints and fhe same was dismissed by this CourtWfirmina the findinas given by the Ciajms Tnbunal in > . ' • • . • - .• - • '•••^ . _• . .. . ' ' . ' ' . • . the c&mmon award dated 30X<2005. 4. Brief facts of case are thaton 16.11.2002 at about 9.00 p.m. Raro Miian (since deceased), Suresh and the appellant herein were going to Baikunfhpur from Sonhat on the motorcycJe of the appeJlant hereirh Mowever, due to rash and negligent driving by the appeliant herein, the said motorcvcle m@t with an accid'ent, as a result of which, Ram Milan & Suresh died on the spot on account of grievous imurJes received by thenfi. The claimants, being the widow and minor children of the deceased, prBterred the ctaim Qpplication ciajmina compensation of Rs,20,OQ,000/m under different h©ads/>?tera//a on the around that the deceased was the soie earning member and due to his death, the ciaimants have suffered loss of jncome. 5. After service of the summons of the cl'aim appijcation, non-appiicant No.l did not fiiehis written statement. Whereas, non-Qppiicant-Insurance Company fited its written statement stating therein that the first information report of the accident only states about sitting of two persons oniy on the motorcycie and there is no mention about the third person. It was ai'so stated that the accident occurred due to negiigence of deceased RQmmilanwho was drjving the vehicle at the tjme of acddent. It wasalso stateda that the vehicie was being plied in breach of the conditions of the insurance po!icy\ 6. The Ciaims Tribunal after hearing the poirtjes In the matter framed three jssues and consid'erina the materja! brouaht on record by the respective partjes in support of their cases, albwed the claim application of the cbimants'herein i.e. respondents No.l to 6, award'ed a compensation of Rs.6,19,000/- along with interest ©7%p.a. and' fastened theliabiiiTy of paying comDensation on the owner/appeliant herein on the around that the vehjcle piied in breach of the conditions of insurance poiicy* 7. We hcard ieamed counsel for the parties and the impugned award as a!so records of the tribunal below. 8. It js the of the appellant that at the tirne of accident he driving the vehjcle-!n-questjon,b£it in the first information report the said fact is \. missing. Further, on^ Anuradha, widow of deceased Ram Milan, who also died -~\ ' . . in the same accident, H^ stated that at the time of accident the motorc/cle in qirestlon was being tjnven by her husband j,©, deceGsed Ram Milan Chpudhary. Even otherwise, if we presume that the appellant was driving the motorcycie and the deceasecj persons were traveling as pjJiion riders/then •T also it is very surprjsing that in an accident where two persons have been dieds, the appellQnt has not received Bven a single jnjury on his body. It appears that since on the date of accident deceased Ram Milan Choudhary was not having vaiid & effective driving licence to drive 1tie motorcycle, therefore, the apDedant, who was havinq valid & effective driving licence, hatched-up a conspirocy with hjs daughters, who were dajmants, by showing that he was drivinq the said motorcycle so that the Insurance Company be held liable for payment of compensation on the ground that there was no breach of conditions of the jnsurance policv; l9.In view of the above djscussion, this Court is of the opinion that th@ ClaJms Tribunai has rightJy exonerated the Insurance Company by ^ecording the finding that there was breach of condition of insurance policy as the motorwcJe-in-question was being driven by deceased Ram Milan, who was not hayjnq vaJidand Bffective driving licence on the date of accident. Even otherwise this Court vide order dated 4;2.2011 passed in M.A.No.1105/05 (arising out of Ciaim Case No.39/03) filed by claimants of deceased Suresh, who was also TraveJing in the said motorcycle as pillion rider, has already affirmed the findings given byltie Claims Tribunaj. Thus.the instant appeal has no force and the same is liable to be djsmissed. 10/So far "as the cross-objection filed by respondent No,l herein for enhQncement of compensation suitabiy and directing the Insurarifce Company to pay the conipensation is concemed.we have aJready held above that the Ctaims Trjbundl has not committed any jliegality or improDriet^ in fastenjng theliability of paying compensation on the appsliant herejn, therefore, this prayer of the cross-objector cahnot be allowed/ Further, on going through the record, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Clainis Tribunal is justand proper in tha facts and circumstances of the case, [u'.' 11. In the result, the igppeai as well as the cross-objectjon are dismissed. No order as to costs. vx R^shanA Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- prashantKumarMishra Judge