Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 600 of 2002 Appellant :- National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Potor And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Mishra,Azad Rai,Hausihla Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents.
This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 25.2.2002 passed in M.A.C.T. No. 541 of 1998 by which Court of M.A.C.T./Special Judge, (E.C. Act) has allowed the claim petition for Rs. 2,11,000/- in favour of respondent no. 1.
Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged only issue no. 2 regarding vehicle being not insured at the time of incident and other issues decided by the learned Tribunal has not been challenged.
In view of above, remaining issues decided by the learned tribunal is hereby affirmed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that incident occurred at 1:00 pm on 26.5.1998 and the vehicle involved in the incident bearing No. ASE 8750 was issued at 1:40 pm on the date of the incident, therefore, he submits that at the time of incident, vehicle was not issued, therefore, he is not liable of payment of compensation.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 opposes the contention submitting that in this regard issue no. 2 has been decided by the learned Tribunal discussing and appreciating the evidence led on the point and came to the conclusion that at the time of incident the vehicle involved was insured.
considering the submissions and going through the findings of Issue No. 2, it appears that learned Tribunal has considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned tribunal considering that the vehicle was seized at the time of incident and the driver was also challaned then how the vehicle was insured by the Development Officer by seeing the jeep involved in the incident and its chesis number. It has also been considered that from the place of incident about 1:30 to 2:00 hour will take in reaching Gorakhpur held that the vehicle was insured at the time of incident. The reasoning given by the learned Tribunal appears cogent reasonable and logical, therefore, no interference is required in the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to deposit remaining amount within a period of two months along with interest.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 A.P. Pandey