'^.i w;»^, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ MISC. APPEAL N0. ^^ / 2005 APPELLANT (Non-Appellant No.1 in the Court Below) y Hazi Alim Memon S/o Abdul Gaffar Memon, Aged about 35 years, Proprietor - Memon Adhunik Stores, R/o Masjid Chowk, Ktiairagarh, Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) .Ownerand Driver of the Vehicle •:». RESPONDENTS 'M M/^)/ ^^7 <!^(7' /i/vv /.-^7 ^& t? y^ ^^J ^J ^) ^ Y^) ^" VERSUS Sarwadaman Singh Baghel, S/o Late Shri Nilam Singh, Aged about 66 years, Retired Employee. Kumari Tripti Singh, D/o Shri Sarwadaman Singh, Aged about 35 years, Occupation - No Occupation. Pramod Singh S/o Shri Sarwadaman Singh, Aged about 33 years, Occupation - No Occupation. Prabhash Singh S/o Shri Sarwadaman Singh, Aged about 32 years, Occupation - No Occupation. Madan Mohan Singh, S/o Late Nilam Singh, Aged about 64 years, Occupation - No Occupation. (All R/o Danteshwari, Ward No.-4, Rajfamily Khairagarh, Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.)) ...... Respondents 1 to 5 are the claimants The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) .Non - Applicant No.2 and the Insurer of the Vehicle x MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT1998 Kl HON'BLEI.M. QUDDUSI PRASHANT KUMAR A No. 606 of 2005 ^ Hazi A1im Menion Nafendra Mohan Das and aaother A No. 607 of 2005 Hazi Aiim Menion Sap/adaman Singh Baghel & othei~s Mr. Ashish Surana, counsel for the appeUaat. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the Insurer/respondent no.2 m M.A.No.606/2005 & rcspondent no.6 ia M.A.No.607/2005. ORDBR (OR&Lj Siuce both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they are being disposed of by fhis coinnion order. Botii the appeals have.been flled by the owner ofthe oflendiiig Maruti Van ^g^iiist flie impugned award dated 21.04.2005 passed . by fhe Additional Motor Accident Clatms Tribunal Khau-agarh, District Ranjandgaon ra. Claiin Case No. 38/2004 aad 34/2004 so far as it relates to fhe Mability to pay conipensation fixed on fhe appellau.t exonerating the Insurance Coinpaay. ' Brief facts of the case, as aUeged by the claiiuaats, arc that on 27.12.2003, Prashant Singh was driviag his Motorcycle bearing Regn.No.C.G.08/4593 whereas Narcndra Mohan Siagh was sitting as piUion rider. They were coining on fhe said inotorcycle to ViUage Khairagarh froni StngarpuT. On fhe way at about 12.00 noon ia viUage Pendri, non-applicant no.l, appeUaat herein, who was drivuig fhe Maj-uti Vaa bearing Regn.No.08-2D/5245 on the inain road speedily aad in a rash and negUgent inanner had wrongly driven his vehicle towards right side in stead ofleft side and dashed the Motorcycle near Haiium.an- Mandir, as a result of which, Prashant Singh and Narendra Mohaa Das feU down at a distaat place froin fhe road. In fhe said accident, Prashant Singh died on the spot whereas fhe piUion rider Narendra Mohau Das sustained grievous iajuries and his right le; bone was fractured. At fhe time of accident, deceased Prashant Singh was aged about 42 years. He was deating in distribution and sales of ftie News Papers through a News Agency m. addition to advertiseiuent works. He was eamins Rs.7000 - 8000/- per monfh. The claimaats iu M.A.No.607/2005 being dependents/legal representatives have filed claim. petition for fhe award of coiapensation to fhe tune of Rs. 16,64,828/- on various heads in lieu of death of fhe deceased whereas the claiinaat iajured ia M.A.No.606/2005 has fUed claun petition for the awari. of coiapensation to fhe extent of Rs.9,71,352/- for the pennanent disabilily caused on account of uijuries sustained by him. ia the said accident. The leamed Claims Tribunal has held fhat due rash and negligent driving of fhe Marud Van by fhe appeUaat, the accident took place, as a result of which, Prashant Singh died aud Narendra Mohaa Das sustained grievous injuries, but no pemiauent disabflity caused to him. The Tribunal has furfher held that the Maruti Van was run wifh fhe fuel of L.P.G., therefore, there was breach of conditions of the Insuraace PoUcy raade by the insured and the iusiiraiice com.paa.y was not responsible to pay coiupensation. The Tribunal has awarded a total coinpensation of Rs.5,14,500/- to fhe claunants for the p death of deceased Prashant Singh and Rs.82,327/- to the r-1flimant iniured Narendra Mohaa Das. In fhis case, fhe date of accident was 27.12.2003 aad fhe provision regardiag tlie kind of fuel to be consuined ia fhe vehicle laentioned ia-sub-section (1) of sub-section (3) of section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been deleted vide notification dated 27.09.2001 by an acaendinent vide Act No.39 of 2001. Therefore, the use ofany kind offuel is penuitted and if the vehicle was beiag used by the L.P.G., there was no iUegalily due to deletion of restrictions as inentioned above. In view of the above, fhe Claiins Tribunal has wrongly exonerated fhe Insurauce Coinpany froin its Uability. Therefore, fhe appellant owner is exonerated from. his Hability and the Insurance Coinpany is held to pay coiapensafaon. At fhis stage, Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, leamed counsel for the Insurauce Coinpany has subiiiitted that since fhe Claiins Tribunal has directed fhe Insurance Coinpany to pay aad recover, it has ah-eady paid fhe amounts of coiupensation, therefore, there is no question of recoveiy of fhe amount of conipensatioa froin the owner. Leamed counsel for fhe appeUaat subinits that he does not press the cross objections filed in M.A.No.607/2005, ttierefore, the same is disinissed as not pressed. In fhe result, bofh fhe appeals are aUowed. No order as to costs. _ • , ~- Sdf- / .M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 7 Rao