^v^ ^:v" Singla Bench s^-' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. | ^S /2006 ^ APPLICANT ^ Harbansh Singh S/o- Indarsingh Chawalia, R/o- Baldevbagh, Rajnandgaon TahsU & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Owner) VERSUS NON APPLICANTS 1),. Krishana Bhalekar, S/o- Gajanand ^ ^2) 3) { Bhalekar, Aged about 43 years Occupation Driver (Truck) R/o- Village Churiya, Rapandgaon, Tahsil & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Driver) Kanhaiya S/o Bhageluram, Aged about 55years,R/o- Nayakbandha, (Abhanpur) TahsU & District Raipur(C.G.) (Claimant) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Kamthi line, Rajnandgaon fhrough Divisional Managar, Divisionan Office & Kachahari Chowk Raipur (C,G.) (Insurer) R CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CrVIL PROCEDURE CODE XI-HG—78 c^ 'WWIT ^pircs ^ET ^ji^ld^, ^tTl^^Ko, [®i<ni<Hli< . n-<^< ^t)-/c/..^t..._ ?^W"""""""""""""""""""""T'""WI.200 -v^^ (^Il^<^) ^T ^T^ .^m^T^l^^" l._ I^T^T ^f^l ^it¥T S.B. Hon'bie Shri Justice N.K. Aaalrwal ndn 05-11-2009 Shri Basant Dewangan, coun4< Shri H.S. Patel, counsel for i Heard on M.(C).P. No| condonation of delay jn fiiing the r< On due consideratjon and appjication 1 am satisfied that th^ explaining the cause of deiay jn M.(C).P. is adowed and the delay hereby condoned. Heard on admission. The jnstant revision is filedl against the award dated 10-05-^ No.85/2005 by IXth Addifional (F.T.C.), Ralpur (for short 'tht whereunder a total sum of Rs.f per annum has been awarded jn and against the applicant/owner| Company, on the ground that the | the truck as a gratuitous passenge| Facts briefly stated as under \ei for the appticant. i-applicant No.3. 11754/2006, appltoation for ivislon. the grounds taken in the applicant has succeeded in [iljng the revjsion. Therefore, |;aused in flling the revision is ^Mid^i^ 1H1R^rf ^ fe^ il^i^K ^^tfm^ir by the owner of the vehicle (005 passed in Claim Case Accident CJaims Tribunal i| Tribunai') whereby and P/- along with interest @ 6% lavour of the injured clajmant exonerating the Insurance |jnjured person was sitting in ?('at the time of accident. Mdtor sodo/ + !-b: ^T ^fNr ^m^l^l^^t^ "s^r ^ii^iid^, ^til^^Ko, [®j<ni^y a- ^. ^t'.;./.(]?.3/- ^m^ti^N!®h ^200^ ^?T'?^? (^3^?) l^i^ ^tt^ a^r 2-' On 13-02-2002 when the cfaimai MOR 9901 along with 2 % quintajt from Abhanpur to Raipur, the saij as a result of which the daimt claimant preferred an applicatio^ compensation on account of the accident. The applicant in his writt^ driver of the truck denSed the Insyrance Company In its writter ctaimant was traveling in the passenger and therefore, Insurar^ payment. Learned Tribunal on a cips< material available on record and parties passed the impugned av favour of the claimant and again| the Insurance Company from its gratuitous passenger hence this re Learned counsel appearir submit that at the time of accidenl in the truck but were pedestrians Tribunal has wrongly fastened th| owner, exonerating thelnsurance •c^p^P^ 'HTWff ^ 'fe^t <M^i< i^^Rm3^T was sjtting in the truck No. putee (Dat) and was coming truck met with an accident, mt sustained injuries. Th© claiming Rs.1,55,000/- as pnjuries sustained in the said |n statement along with the facljum of accident. Respondent statement pleaded that the |said truck as a gratuitous jranjce Company is not liable for scrutiny of the evidence led, ^Q submisslons made by the 1/ard awarding Rs.5,000/- in i^t the appellant, exonerating l|ability holding claimant to be ivislon. r|g for the applicant would the p6rsons were not sjtting and, therefore, the Jearned i^ liabiljty upon the appjicant ^ompany from its liability. 4r+ .^-^^^ ^^•^- •A ""-^ 1^l. . w ^^"^^ XI-HG—78 ^T^l^T^Tte .^^T^I^I'^RN' \^ Kvr ^ WNril WNI^ 75E[ ^i^id^, ^til-^i®,r®i<ni'yi< ^^.....^...:../M ^^^f^ (^3^°) -3- Tiave neard the learned"^ ^TqfeNh ^TO^f ^ fe^t^^K ^affm^i^T ounsel for the appljcant and have carefully gone through the rejcord. In the written statement filejd by the applicant along wlth the driver ofthe vehicie, factum <|>faccident itself was denied; lRer asked anything in the cro^s-examination of appficant suggesting the injured person as| a pedestrian at the tjme of accldent and, therefore, mere stajtement of the driver without pleading if disbelieved by the Tribi|nal then the Tribunal has not committed any jiiegality in dolng !t is trite iaw that noamount of evidence can be looked into without pleading. The findir Tribunal regarding the fact that the] said truck as gratuitous passenge g recorded by the ieamed clajmant was travefing in the r js based on material and deserves to be upheld. No other grjound has been raised. For the foregoing reasons, 1 the revision filed by the appficant. isse lo not find any substance in Therefore, the revision js Ijable to be and is hereby dismissec| at admlssion stage. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge +