HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Smfl!e_Bench : Hon'bIeShri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Respondents Claimant Claimant IVIiscellaneous Appeal (Cl No-1039 of 2008 Appellant ' : Pawan Kumar Agrawal, S/o Rishikesh Owner Agrawal,Agedabout33years,P.S.Basna, Tahsil-Basna, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) Tractor Vehicle No. M.P. 23 G.A. 2945 and Trolley and M.P. 23 G.A. 2946 and amended vehicte No. C.G. 04Z.Q 6101 and Trolley No. C.G. 04 Z.Q 6102 Versus 1. Anjl Kumar Kaund, S/o Shri Madan Kaund, Agedabout18years, 2. Neel Kumar Kaund, S/o Latge Shri Madan Kaund, Aged about 15 years, Both are residents of Village Mednipur, P.S.-Basna, Tahsil-Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) < Insurer 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kachahari Chowk, Mednipur Building, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Insurer of Tractor Vehicle No. M.P. 23 G.A. 2945 and Trolley and M.P. 23 G.A. 2946 and amended vehicle No. C.G. 04 Z.Q 6101 and Trolley No. C.G. 04 Z.Q 6102 Driver 4. L6knath Sao, S/o Shri Likhan Sao, Aged about 40 years, R7o Village-Kurchundi, P.S.Basna, Tahsil-Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Tractor Vehicle No. M.P. 23 G.A. 2945 and Trolley and M.P. 23 G.A. 2946 and amended vehicle No. C.G. 04 Z.Q 6101 and Trolley No. C.G. 04 Z.Q 6102 A^PEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Prateek Sharma, counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19.08.2008) Heard on admission. INWI' 2. This is an appeal by the owner who is aggrieved by an award dated 6.5.2008 passed in claim case No.25/2008 by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (henceforth (the Tribunal) whereby exonerating the insurer liability was fastened on the owner to pay compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- in the case of death of Smt. Chinj Bai who was travelling on the trolley attached to the tractor at the time of accident. 3. It is not disputed that the appellant is the owner of the tractor &nd trolley which was insured by respondent No.3 on the date of accident. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was travelling on the trolley. Learned counsel for the appellant also did not dispute that no extra premium was received by the insurer to cover the risk of any such person travelling on the trolley. In this view ofthe matter, the case in hand is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Serjerao and others, 2007 AIR SCW 7280 whereunder in such a situation it has been held that the liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company to pay compensation. 4. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. I.A.No.1 for grant of stay is also dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge