H!GH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR E {QIVISION BENCH) CORAM : Hon’ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ Hon’hle Shri D.R. Deshmukh, J. Misc. Appeai No. 712 OF 2005 United India insurance Company Appellant (Non-applicant N0. 2) Limited, Through 2 its Divisional \ Manager, Divisicnal Office Main Road u a Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (C .G.) Versus REsi=ONDENTs 1. Kumud Singh Wlo Sanjay Singh, aged (Applicant No. 1)‘ about 30 years (Applicant No. 2) 2. Anurag Singh S/o Sanjay Singh. aged about 7 years. (Non-applicant No.1) 3. Bhawani Singh S/o Sanjay Singh aged about 5 years, Non-applicant No. 2 and 3 are Minors through, their natural guardian Mother Kumud Singh, W/o Sanjay Singh, R/o Varanasi (UP) (Non-applicant No.3) 4. Vidyasagar Singh. aged about 60 years, Rio Village Taray, pos Masodar, Distt. Kamour (Bihar) 1(Non—applicant No. 4) 5. Neeraj Patel Slo Balakram Patel, aged about 30 years, R/o Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) (Non-applicant No.5 6 Vijay Jamnik S/o L.A. Jamnik, aged about 36 years, Occupation Service, R/o D.C. Road Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) s .1 Present: Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 2"a of January 2006) The following Order of the Court was passed by S.R. Nayak, CJ: In this appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, it is contended that the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident i.e.truck, had contributed negllgence in causing accident and t ) therefore, entire Iiability‘to pay compensation could not have been E fastened on the appellant - insurance company. This contention requires to be noticed is only to be rejected. in the first instance, sch a plea is not taken in the written statement} statement of u ojecns fiied by the insurance company before the MACT. btio urther, the insurance company - appellat has not adduced any F n ide‘nce to prove that fact.’ It is needless to state that the question V whether the driver of the truck contributed negligence in causing accidnt is hundred percent a question of fact. Admittedly, the e apellant — insurance company did no seek permission of the MACT p t under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contes the t claim of the claimants on merit. Looking from that angle also, the contention now urged by the appellant - insrance company touching u merits of the matter could not be countenanced. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sdl- ' ’ chief Justice Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge .z s do. ev ?