Respondents vs Appellant

Smt. Bismat Bai, Wd/o Late Munnalal Chandel,aged42 years, Domanlal, S/o Late Munnalal Chandel, aged 22 years j(p) ^" Minor Nima Bai, D/o Late Munnalal Chandel. Aged about 15 years, through Guardian mother Smt. Bismat Bai, Wd/o Late Munnalal Chandel. (All R/oVillage Doomardihkhurd, P.S. Ghumka, Tehsil & Distt. Rajnandgaon Respondent No. 2 Non-Applicant No.j^ Respondent No. 3 Non-Applicant NQ."2 Ramu Prajapati, S/o Chandulal Prajapati, R/o Mohara, P.S.Basantpur, Tehsil & Distt. Rajnandgaon Awdhesh Prajapati, S/o Ghanshyam Prajapati, R/o Mohara, P.S.Basantpur, Tehsil & Distt. Rajnandgaon Respondent No.4 Non-Applicant no. 3 " ,. Akashdeep, S/o Maganlal Bais, R/o Juni Shukrawari, Nagpur (Maharashtra) @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILAPUR (SinQle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J) M.A. FC1 No.975/2007 Appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondents

1. (a) Smt. Raj Bai Vs (b) Mohendra Kumar (c) Minor Janki Bai (d) Minor Usha Bai (e) Minor Seema (f) Minor Tribhuwan

2. Ramu Prajapati 3. Awdhesh Prajapati 4. Akashdeep & M.A. [C] No.976/2007 Appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondents Vs

1. (a) Smt. Bismat Bai (b) bomanlal (c) Minor Nimo Bai

2. Romu Projapati 3. Awdhesh Prajcpati 4. Akashdeep Present: Mr. Raj Awasthy, Advocate for the appellQnt-Insurance Company. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for respondent-claimants. Mr. A.L Singraul, Advocate for respondents-Owner & briver. None for the respondent-Akashdeep. ORDER (13thAu9Ust, 2013)

1. Since the common issue is involved in the obove appeals, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

2. By filing aforesaid miscellaneous appeals under Section 173 of the Motor 'the Act, 1988') the appellant-insurance Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short company has prayed for quashment of the award dated 10.4.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short Claims Tribunal') in following cloim cases whereby compenSGtion has been awarded to the claimants ond the Insurance Company has been held liable to pay the amount of compensation;- Page2of3 ^l M.A. [C1 Nos.975 & 976/2007 M.A. (C) No. Date of award passed by Claims Amount awarded Tribunal & Claim Case No.

10.4.2007 Claim Case No.25/2006 10.4.2007 Claim Case No.24/2006 Rs.1,99,000/- with 9% p.a. Rs.2,25,000/- with 9% p.a.

3. Mr. V.K. Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate and submits that he has filed onapplication for withdrawal of power on behalf of the respondents No.2 <& 3 as they are in the panel of advocates of the appellant-Insurance Company/which has not been allowed till today. Even any counsel in the panel of advocates of any company may contest the case against the said company.

4. As per claim applications, two unfortunate persons namely Munnalal, aged about 45 years, <& GendurQm, aged about 46 years, going to their village bumardih-khurd on Luna Moped bearing registration number CG07-B-4496 died as a result of motor accident caused by Matador bearing registration number CG04-J-0135, owned by respondent No.3, driven by respondent No.2 and insured by the present appellant. Widow and children of deceased persons filed two separate claim applications bearing Claim Case Nos.24/06 & 25/06 before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. In both the claim applications, the present appetlant has taken a specific plea that the offending vehicle was not insured with it as Policy No.310010/31/04/7719, wi'thin cover Note No.026917 is not retated to the respondent No.3 but related to one Dashmesh Transport Corporation. By filing written statement, the respondents No.2 <& 3 herein have taken a specific defence that aforesaid vehicle was insured with the present appellant. Specific number of policy has been mentioned in C!ause-B of the additional pleadings of the respondents No.2 & 3 herein.

5. After providing opportunity of hearing.the Claims Tribunal has allowed both the claim applications and awar'ded Rs.2,25,000/- <& Rs.1,99,000/- respectively. The Claims Tribunal vide Para-18 of the award has held that policy relied by the claimants and the insurance company are not one <& the same and both are different. SM IIIw\ •'^^ Page3of3 ^ M.A. FC1 Nos.975 <& 976/2007

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the Claims Tribunal has illegally considered that policies (Ex.b-1 & b-4) are not one and the same and thereby committed illegality. The appellant has specifically pleaded and proved that the vehicle in question is not insured with it, therefore, the appellant is not liable for payment of any compensation.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents have opposed the appeal and submit that after discussing the aforesaid question in detail, the Claims Tribunal has held that both the policies (Ex.b-1 <& D-4) are not one and the same. The appellant has specifically pleaded that policy in question has not been issued by it and by adducing evidence of Sharanjeet Singh (NA4W-1) the appellant has proved the fact that policy (Ex.b-1) has been issued to bashmesh Transport Corporation and not to the respondent No.3 herein. Respondent No.3 has examined himself and deposed that policy (Ex.b-4) has been issued by the appellant in respect of his vehicle. In the policy of Ex.D-1 issued to Dashmesh Transport Corporation, number mentioned is 280405/31/04/6300007719, but the number mentioned in policy of Ex.b-4 is 310010/31/04/7719.

8. Undisputedly, both the policies numbers are not one <& same and both have not been issued in respect of same vehicle or owner inter alia it has been issued to two different owners which by itself is sufficient to reject the claim of the appellant-Insurance Company. The appellant has not adduced any other evidence to show that the policy in question (Ex.b-4) has been issued to other person and not the present respondent No.3. In these circumstances, by awarding compensation against the present appellant in Claim Case Nos.24/06 & 25/06, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any illegality. 9: Consequently^I do not find any substonce in both the appeals, the same are liable t,o be dismissed andare hereby dismissed. No order astocosts. | Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge