CIVIL REVISION N0. s^ /2009 v. Stand, Bilaspur [C.G.]

Babool Das Alias Babul Das S/o Shri Nivaran Das, aged about 36 years, Occupation- Tractor Driver 85 Owner, Resident of P.V.-90, Police Station Pakhanjur, Post Nagaldand, Tahsil- Pakhanjur, District Kanker (Chhattisgarh). Sukesh Saha S/o Shri Sudhir Saha, aged about 28 years Occupation - Labour, Resident of Maana Camp, Tahsil 85 District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 0:ainiant

2. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH. BILASPUR (Sinqle Bench; Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J) Civil Revision No. 83/09 APPELLANT The New India Assurance Company Ltd. RESPONDENTS Vs

1. Babool bas alias Babul Oas.

2. Sukesh Saha Present: Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. JUD6MENT (03.04.2013)

Heard on I.A. No.l, for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.

For the reasons assigned in the application (IA No.l), it is allowed. Delay in filing the appeQl is hereby condoned.

By this revision the appellant-Insurance CompQny has challenged the oward dated 28.4.2006 passed by the 11th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.13/2005 whereby the Claims Tribunal has partly allowed claim application of the respondent No.2, awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and fastened iiability upon the presenf appellant to pay compensation to the claimant.

As per impugned award, the tractor bearing registration number MP23- GA-2849 was owned by the respondent No.l and insured with the present appellant. On 3.12.2002 it was driven in a pu.blic way by the respondent No.l and during the course of driving, the accident took place in which the respondent No.2 received injuries. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent No.2 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award.

Learned co"unsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the respondent No.2 was not sitting in tractor but WQS sitting in the trolley, which was not insured, and therefore the applicont is not liable for payment of any ,^s^^ Page2of2 C.R. No.83/09 ^ compensation. Even otherwise, there is no facility of sitting in the tractor, therefore, sitting of any person except driver in a tractor is also a violation of conditions of insurance policy that too by the driver and owner of the tractor. He further submits that two other appeals arising out of the same accident are also pending before this Court and the aforesaid appeals are required to be heard together.

As per submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, three claim applications were filed and decided separately by the Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, a revision against the award dated 28.4.2006 has been filed.

On due consideration, I do not find any illegality in the impugned oward requiring any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction that too relating to compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Consequently, the revision being devoid of merits liable to be dismissed ond is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order shall not affect merits of other two appeals pending for consideration. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ll-N^