aA HIGH CCXJRT OF CHHATTISOARH ATeiLASPUR SB: HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, J « Misc. Appeal 10 No. 959 of 2^07 s,.i Appellants Respondents Smt. Anita Shivhare W/o Late Shri Rajesh Shivhare & ottier.;! Versus Branch Manager, Through United India Insuranice Co; Ltd.. & another POST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER Sd/- JODGE ^ -07-2011 Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge \.<\ ...^—^Hii^TIT; ^ € ..^®^, '^ I 1 '€ J S \,.^y ^ '^ |ai» ...r.-i:.'i' ^HIGM COURTOFCHHATTI^iAF fc^F®ILASI»U^? Single Bench:- Hon'bte Shrt R.N. Chandrakar. J * .,.^^— M.A. (Cll^to. 959 of 2007 WB .•"';-;:?1..^:,,. yto;i!i:: Appellants 1. Smt. Antta Shivhare V^CN4.at@s Shri Rajesh Sliiivhlirt ^ld about34years. 2. Ku. Shikha Shivharo D/o»late i Shri Rajesh Shivhar®yaged« . aboutl12years. ^.,l,,,,t;;|" i;'2~ 3. Shwan Shivhare SA» Late $hri s Rajesh Shhrtiare aged aboutA ', 10,yeare. „,,,, .1.^,-,/ ^,; 4. Shashank Shivhare Sto Late Shrt Rajesh Shivhare aged about107 years.:\.^^..^y' '^S: Appellants No, 2-4 are miror through by natural gusrclial Appellant No. 1 Smt. Anfta Shivhare. L 5. Smt. Lakshmi Shh^iare W/o r Late Shri Ghandrlka^rasad Shivhare aged about 70 yftar^. 1 All resident of MahalpaFa t Road Baikunthpur P.S. and , Tahsil ^Baikunthpur Distt. 'KoreaC.G. ,K,:,^M,,;! ,:;;p Respondents Versus 1. Branch Naffiager, Ttiroygh y . United Ihctja (nsui'aru^ ICo. ? Ltd., Near of Ram Mancttr .AmbJkapur, Distt. Sarguja C.'tS. 2. Gautam Prasad Dubey S/o Shri Jagannath Prasact Oubey aged about 26 years,-R/6 Village Keshgava, P^. agid Tahsil Sonhat, Present R/o Mandalpara, P.S. and "Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Kopea, ..,:I.C.G.' »,^..^''7'^ l--,;l,,:,,,.;:Sl..l M-^^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAbUNDER SECTION 173 OP TME MOIORVBHIGt.ES !- ACT. , •' ^' '""" \ . ! !' .' '"' . . • •^ Appearance: Shri Akhitesh Mishra, coin'isel for the appellarts Shri H.B. Agrawat, Sr. Advocatewitb Sftri counsel for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No. 2 ;.^ l^wwwv^ ^;.Y^-;'^.^.'^' '^ , (Passed on ^^Juty, 2011) 1) The appellants/claimants have preferred this iippeal being aggrieved by the award dated 05.07.2007 passed byMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Koria-Baikunthpur (for short tkie ';.^:'-^::.-^-.^\:-;.|r.^;.-' ^ Tribunal) in CIaim Case No. 35/2006 whereby th®clatra petiNQn filed bythe appellants was dismissed by the Tribunal. s 2) Brief facts, in a nutshell, are tb^t on 21.05.2005 thedeceqsed Rajesh Shivhare who was Ihe owner of the offlending vehfcle Jeep bearing registratlon No. C.G.-16/A-0053was®omingby his vehicte from Baikunthpur to viliage Tendi®. The said Jeep was being driven by Gautam Prasad Dube^frespondeiit Np.2 driver of the deceased Rajesh Shivhare and in the meanwhUe th®said Jeep was turtled near Aanganbadi Bhawan at village Anwarapara due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicf® Jeep, as a result of which deceased Raje^h Shh^re sustained grievous injuries on different parts of the body and djectun Qoyt. hospital, Baikunthpur during the course (rf treatment. | 3) The appellants/claimants by filing a claim petition undep Seetion 166 of the Motor Vehteles Act before the Tribunal ciaimed compensation of Rs.46,50,000/- for the death @f deceasect Rajesh Shivhare in the motor accident on 21.05.2006. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition fBed toy the W-- -.-.,^:'-',:-.^ appellants/clalmants on the ground that the otfending yehtele was insured under 3rd party scheme policy and at the time of inci(|ent the deceased was sitting in the offending vehicW as ©wner^ hence, he cannot be treated as 3^ party c|iimant^and t|ie \ .;'?^w ^y l!:!fl T'"; g insurance corr^any is not liabte 4o pay*coRipensatton to.ttw owner of the vehtele. 4) Shri Akhilesh Mishra, teamed counsel for tte appeltarrts vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in dismtesh^ the claim petition and in not considering the liabiltty in respect»of death of the owner of the vehtele. He atso argued4hat*the learned Tribunal ought to have consideredthe tact tlraft deceaseEl" had got the cover note in respect of his v^iteleMn term @f .^-::-:.'^.^..'...:'..;';^'a:-:^ comprehensh/e insurance. He furthor argued that aecortfng t@ the policy of the respondent No.1, tt was assurect that whoBoever obtained the comprehensive policy shall deemed to be personajly insured for the sum of Rs.1,00,OOQf-y|3tp the existeence oif the prescribed poltey but the Gourt below did not conslder the same and dismissed the bonafied claim ofthe appellants. 5) Per contra, Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advooate wtth Shri Pankaj Agrawal, leamed counsel for respondent No.1 ie Vnlted In^ia Insurance Company Limited supported the impugned award passed bythe Tribunal. a 6) I have heard the leamed counsel f©rth@ parti^, perused the impugned award and records ofthe Tribunal. 7) So fer as ground raised by the appellants/claimants is concemed, it is clear from perusal of insurance poficy (Ex.D-1) preduced by the respondenVnon-applicant No.1 that the name of deceased Rajesh Shivhare is mentioned as owner of the sakl vehicle. Photocopy of regi^ration paper of the said vehide was seized vide (Ex.P-8) wherein deceased's name was mentioned on as owner. From perusal of insurance policy (Ex.D-1), in schedule of premium, no premium to cover th»risk of owner is mentioned to be paid, 8) A.B. Mate (AW/1) has stated in his dep(?sition that de^ased's vehicte was insured under the package of passenger carrying commercial vehicle. He also deposed that premium for damage to the vehiote, death of third party, injury to third party, loss of ^^m J^; ^ third party assets, liability to 5 passengers and 1 driver had been taken. He further deposed that no extra premium to eover the risk of owner and damage to the vehicte was taken. The awner does not fall in the category of third party. 9) In view of theaforesaid, undisputedly, the cteceased was the owner of offending vehicle and no premium to eover the rSak of , owner was paid by him. He was traveling for hte bustness purposes In the vehtete as the owner, as deposed by the daimant/appellant No.1 (para 1). Thus, he does not fall under the category of third party as he was traveling as a owner not as apassenger. 10) Having considered all the facts and drcumstanees of the case, l am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has righ^y dismissed the claim petition of the appeltants/cl^mants and no interference is called for in this appeal. 11) Accordingly, the appeal being devoiel of merit is liable to be dismissed and is herebydismissed.. 12) No order as to costs. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Vijay