^Wte S^©h '©iHl c<- ^ IN THE HON'BLE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT -A M.A. fC) No. BILASPUR ij8 ^f2009. \^1"1^ APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT No. 2 ^;^®1 '^^"ej^w ^-^r RESPONDENTS :- Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, (C.G.) VERSUS :-1. Amol Sai Das son ofBihari Harijan, aged about 47 years, Occupation- Business and Agriculture, resident ofVillage- Mahora, Police Station- Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, (C.G.) 2. Subhash Chandra Das son of late Shri Birsai, aged about 32 years, Occupation- service, Tahsil Office, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. (Claim in appeal valued at Rs. 20,000/- and C.F. paid at Rs. 15/-) - 1\^ Fl HI©HCOl^T OF CHH^m.S^.RH .4T BILASPUR ,4op@ltolt 'Rs-sooRdents ^.,A. (€}No.198 "f Bmnch AAanager, United Indla Insuronce Company Ltd. Branch Office near Kam Mandir, Ambjkapur, DistrJct-Sarguja (C..&.) Versu^ 1, Amot Sai bas son of Blhari Harljan, aged about 47 yeors, Occupatjon-Business and Agricylliire, resident of VIISaye-Mahora, Police Station-Patna, T<Asi! Balkynthpur, Dlstrict-Korlya (c.<:7.) 2. Subhosh Chandm Das son of late Shri Bir^ii, aged about 32 years, Occupatjon-" service, Tahsil Office, BaJkynthpur, &istrict-j<oriya (€.6.) (APPEAL U/S 17.3 OF THE MOTOft VEHia.E ACT) (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T..P.. ShwmQ, J.) Mr< H.B-AgrawiJ, Sentor Coynsei wth Mr- Pankaj Agrawal, coynsel for 1tie appelbnt. OR.^L ysssed-Qn 27th Febrysry. I.A.No.02, appHcation for takiu3 deposit recejpt on record, Is allowed. bocument is taken on record. I..A..No.02, appJicatlon for exemption the appe.JJarst from filing permisslon under Section 170 of the AAotor Vehicte Act, Is ciljowed. This is Insurance appea! against thc award dated 15J.0..2008 passed by Judge, .AAotor Accident Cfoirps TrjbunaJ, Knmy^ (Boikunthpur), in Motor .Accjdent C!aJm Co.se No.63/2006 whereby the leorned Tribunal has owarded Rs.20000/" -to respondent NoJ, a.s a result of motor accident -- s -2- (^ 2,< The a^ard Is chojlenged on Ifie ground that Insurance Company Is not liabie for any compensation because 'ttie driver ' wcis drlvjng the offendsng vehicSe wjthout there being vajjd Jicence ond has violated the conditbn of 1fi?e Insumnce/contract. 3. I have heard tearned eounsel for the oppeltant and perused the niA^ard irppugned, 4. Learned counsei for the appe!!ant submits that respondent No.l has neither produced 1+ie doctor nor proyed JnjurJe=s and djsabjlit^., 5. From perusol of the award jmpygned, it appeors 1+iat no any issue reteting trl w'8^ iicence has been fromed by the Court beloi^., No permission to contest on oJI issues has been gronted to the appeJJant. &espondent NoJ. has examined himself aiong with copy of documents of medico-Sega1 certiflcate which shows the facture of flbula of right bone of respondent No.l. 6. ^fter taking into conslderation the cost of treatment, bss of earning of respondent No.i, the Court bebw has awQrded Rs. 20,000/n as compensation to respondent No.l against the appelbnt Insurance Company and owner of the vehic'e. I do not flnd any lliega!!^ or jnfirmjty in the impugned csward. Even otherwise, the appelb.nt has not choJJenged the order dismisslng permbsion under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act fjied by the oppe!!ant. 7. Consequently, the appeal has no force, same. .is !Iab!e to be disniissecJ oind it Is herebv cjisjnisscd, 8, In yie^ of above^ I.,A<No.,01 stands dismissed., 8/- Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^