New India Insurae Company Ltd., through the Branch Manager, 2" Floor. Raipur Development Aumorfty Bhawan, Bajrang Market, GE Road, Raipur, through Divisional Manager, Divisionai omce, New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1. Jhadi Yadav, aged about 40 years. son of Late Konda Yadav, occupation Labour/ cattle grazing. Rio village Bargav, Tah. Beria, Dit. Durg. 2. Smt. Prem Bai, wife of Jhadi Yadav, aged about 35 year, Occupation Labourer, R/o village Bargav, Tah. Berla, Dist.Durg. 3. Ku. Sarita, Dlo Jhadi Yadav, aged about 7 years (Minor) through natural guardian — father Jhadi Yadav, son of Late Konda Yadav, R/o village Bargav, Tah. Beria, Dist. Durg. 4. Punau Ram, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Anjore Das Dhruw, occupation - Vehicle Driver, Rlo vill. Raw, P.S. Arjuni, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). 5. Parmanancl Verma, aged about 5 years, son of Shri Khoob Ram Verma, occupation — vehicle owner, cte Kurmi, R/o vill. Girendra, PS. Tah. an Distt. Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon’le Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present : Shri Ali Asgar, counsel for he petitioner/Insurance Company. t (Passed on th 1 ay of Auust, 2008) is 8 d g Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Insurance Company submits that the impugned awar dated 28-2~2008 (Annexure-PI1)_ passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, Distric 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 aiso not ~ having possession of the valid licence. it \\ HIGH COURT OF ¢HHATTISGARH: BILA$PUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 3289 OF 2008 PETITIONER nc s in s a as 3 d b ORAL ORDE d t 2) The Tribunal aiier hearing an the parties came to the conclusion that the pitioner/Insurance Company has failed to estabiish hat he vehicie involved in the accidet was ot 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 Companyr With regard to driving licence, enquiry was made and the Regional Transport Officer, Raipur, submitted that the riving licence was not issued from the office of Regional Transport Officer. 3) Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides hat no appeal shall lie gainst any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than en thousand rupees. The purpose seems to be laudable, as or grant of less than Rs.1 0,0001- the complinant shold not be ragged to the Court. 4) :Be that as it may, since the amnt of compensation involved is only an amount of Rs.1,000I-, it is not necessary to go into the aspect that whethr the driver was not in possession of the valid driving lince This court does no exercise writ jurisdiction ly, but is a court of equit also. 5 This cort in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Amcle 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, irregulaty or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the ecord, 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 been awarded to each 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/o Sdl- Satish w i" K' AgnihOU‘i Judge Gowri g”en. ~ JIV/ i, et t t n n d t a t f a u d ou e ce t on y ) u ri r i;