IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. / C/5'/2006 APPLICANT •» Harbansh Singh S/o- Indarsingh Chawalia, R/o- Baldevbagh, Rajnandgaon Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Owner) VERSUS NONAPPLICANTS 1) l^ .^\ ^•~\/[ /' ^"^ 2) ^^- ^ 3) Krishana Bhalekar, S/o- Gajanand Bhalekar/ Aged about 43 years Occupation Driver (Truck) R/o- Village Churiya, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Driver) JugaUdshore S/o- KapUdas, Aged about 30 years, R/o- Nayakbandha, (Abhanpur) Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) (Claimant) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Kainthi line, Rajnandgaon through Divisional Managar, Divisionan Office & Kachahari Chowk Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer) l^ -.-—.I CIYILREVISION UNDFR <iFrTION 115 OF THE CmL PROCEDURE CODE ~=¥~ XI-HC—78 ^r f^-il^ : ^I ^I^CTf^W^ ^^r ^II^Krl^, ^tTl^4l<o, t^TRTy ^........C..,4.....^..-.^.-^200^ ^?T 'q^^ (li?^<s8^) I^TW^fi^^Ti^ S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaahval 05-11-2009 Shri Basant Dewangan, couns^i for the appjicant. Shri H.S. Patel, counsel for nc^-applicant No.3. Heard on M.(C).P. No.|l condonation of delay in fiting the r^ On due consideration and appiication 1 am satisfied that th^ explainjng the cause of delay in M.(C),P. is altowed and the delay hereby condoned. Heard on admission. The instant revisjon js filedl the grounds taken in the applicant has succeeded in pling the revision. Therefore, {;aused in filing the revision is against the award dated 10-054005 passed in Claim Case No.81/2005 by IXth Additional Mcftor Acddent Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur (for short 'thje Tribunat') whereby and whereunder a total sum of Rs.5,21 per annum has been awarded in and against the applicant/owner| Company, on the ground that the| the truck as a gratuitous passenge|- at the time of accldent. Facts briefly stated as undei) •^Fqf^z^ TFI^ ^ 'fe^ ^R$R ^>^f^ ^T^T 756/2006, application for vislon. by the owner of the vehicje ?6/- aiong with interest @ ©% avour of the injured olaimant exonerating the insurance injured person was sitting in 4- T XI-HG—78 "s^r "^i^id^, ^til^i^^, i^<rii^i< _.„......c:.^.:..^2...'.. -q^? ('rt^^) ^N'. ^I ^t^. -^m +. ^' -OnT3=^=2 Wfeifrf-qTERtf ^ fe^t ^R?TC ^at^^l^T "wlien the cpmant was sitting In the truck No. MOR 9901 was comtng from |Abhanpur to Rajpur, the said truck met with an accident, as aj result of which the claimant sustained injuries. The claimartt preferred an appjication daimjng Rs.1,75,000/- as comp^nsatlon on account of the injuries sustained in the said accid^nt. The appjteant in his writte| driver of the truck denied the factl Insurance Company in its written r» statement along with the rim of accident. Respondent statement pleaded that the clalmant was traveling in the ^aid truck as a gratuitous passenger and therefore, Insuran^;e Company is not (iable for payment. Learned Tribunal on a close|scrutiny ofthe evidence ted. materiai avajlabie on record and t^e submissions made by the parties passed the jmpugned awjard awarding Rs.5,276/- jn favour of the claimant and agalns| the Insurance Company from its li^ gratuitous passenger hence fhis re^ Learned counsei appearin^ submlt that at the time of accident in the truck but v/ere pedestrians Tribunai has wrongly fastened the| the appeKant, exonerating ibjjity holding daimant to be islon. for the appjicant would |he persons were not sjtting |and, therefore, the learned liability upon the appjicant owner, exonerating the insurance qompany ftom 1ts flabllfty. i ^- '-" T- ^..L.-^;: ••^•^•^••^•"^^. ~ qr- .-^0 XI-HG—78 ^1^1 ^T fqi'i^ • ^m ^^ \c >^ Kvr WWW^HI^ 75T -<41<41dsLI, ^tll^^Ko, [^<ni^^< ...c....£^o,./^^^ an^T'q^T ( fil^d I have heard the iearned havecarefully gone through the r^c in the written statement the driver of the vehicle, factum no^ ^sked anything in Ihe cr<|)s suggesting the injured person a^ accident and, therefore, mere pteading if disbelieved by the committed any jjjegaijty in doing s|3. it is trite Jaw that no amouht into Without pleading. The find| Tribunal regarding the fact that th^ said truck as gratujtous passen^ei deservesto beupheld. Noother For the foregoing reasons, the revision filed by the applican|t. liable to be and is hereby dismiss^ ;ounsel for the appjjcant and r^cord. by the applicant along with jof accident itself was denjed; [)ss-examination of appllcant a pedestrian at the time of st^tement of the driver without Trit3|unal then the Tribunal has not of evidence can be iooked 'ng recorded by the learned claimant was traveling in the |er is based on materiaj and Iround has been raised. do not find any substance jn Therefore, the revislon is |d at admissjon stage. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ^F?}^^ 'HFR^ff ^ °fe^t^P^K (-