.^. ir^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL rCI N0. ^ ^>^ /2009 Q^jgjo^ MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION r730FTHE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 ACTELLANT ISURER ^ ^^. ^M ^ 1 ^ :- ^JdCI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office: ^^ ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla, '^<^) '/^ S^ Complex Mumbai, 4000 51, through \NW? !lj^ its Le§a^ Manager, ICICI Lombard ^' General Insurance Company Limited t^* A^Y"' Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, 3rd Noor, ' .,.-^v G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^LAIMANTS DMVER OW^BR ~^ l^ Lagnu Nishad aged about 45 s/o Roop Singh Nishad. ^ 2^- Smt. Dukalhin Bai, aged about 42 years, w/o Shri Lagnu Nishad. Both R/o vUlage Khatta, P.0. Patewal, P.S. Tumgaon, District Mahasamund (C.G.), at present residing at Raipur through Mahendra Nishad in front of Provision stores, Shriram Nagar, Changorabhatha, Raipur (C.G.) k^ Suritram alias Surid, aged about 36 years, s/o Shri Mannu Dhruv, R/o village Dondra, P.S. 85 Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.). ^A^Gopal Sahu s/o Makhan Lal Sahu, aged about not kaown, R/o _Q_- Kukripara, Raipur (CG) District Raipur A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON»BLBI.M. QUDDUSI & HON*BLE N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ MI8C. APPEAL (Cl No. 738 OF 2009 Vs. MISC. APPEAL UNDBR SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VBHICLE8 ACT. 1988 APPEARANCB: Mr. Saurabh Sharma, counsel for fhe appeUaat. Mr. Shivendu Paadya, counsel for respondent 1 & 2. Mr. P. P. Sahu aad Mr. S.P. Sahu, counsel for respondents 3 &4. Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J JUDGMBNT (ORALI (31.08.2010) 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insuraace Compaay agauist fhe impugned award dated 31st Januaiy 2009 passed by fhe XI Addl. Motor Accident Clauas Tribunal, Raipiir. 2. Brief facts of the case are fhat on 27.12.2007 deceased Kaialesh Nishad along-wifh his brother Rameshwar Nishad was traveUng as passenger ia Swraj Mazda beanng Regn.No. C.G.04-G- 3418 which was goiag froin fodder center, Riag Road No.2, Raipiir to Khorpa Abhatipur. On the way at viUage Parsada, due to rash aad negligent driviag of respondent no.3 Suritram, fhe said vehicle met wifh aa accident by dashmg a tree in which Kamlesh has sustamed serious iajuries which resulted in his deafh. A report was APPBLLANT I.CJ.CJ, Loinbard General Insuraace Compaiiy Ltd. RBSPONDENTS Laswi Nishad aad others ^^wwm ^- ^- lodged in PoUce Station Abhaapur where oflFence u/ s 218 & 304-A IPC was registered. The claunaats beiag parents ffled Application u/s 166 ofth4e Motor Vehicles Act, 1966 statmg that the deceased was 23 years of age and he was workuig ia a fodder center, Raipur, where he was eaaung Rs. 3000/- per inonth and clabned Rs.8,45,000/-. The Claixns Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, granted Rs.3,99,400/- as amount of com^nsation, Howeyer, the Tribunal fastened the UabiUty on the Insurance Company while exonerathig the owner and drwer of the vehicle. 3. This appeal has been filed maioly on the ^ound that fhe deceased was not a labourer deputed in the vehicle in question as he was working m. a fodder shop, therefore^ he was not covered under fhe terms ofthe iasurance poUcy. 4. Further, the owner and driver of fhe vehicle theinselves have admitted in their written statenient vide Para 6 that the deceased Kamlesh Nishad was sitting ia the vehicle as gratuitous passenger as he was known to the labourers of the ofFending vehicle and thus it cannot be said fhat he was a labourer deputed ia the vehicle. 5. We have perused the case of the claimants also ia which it has been specificatty stated that the deceased was working ia a fodder shop (Parakutti) from where he started traveUng ia the said Vehicle and thus it caiuiot be said fhat he was a labourer deputed ia the vehicle. ^^sste.:,^ .,-••^1. ':\ .'*y i^^^i ^K^r^y 6. As per section 147 of flie Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the gratuitous passengers sittiag ia a goods vehicle are not required to be covered under the statutory poUcy. It is also not a case put forth by fhe owner of flie vehicle fhat by takmg extra premiiini, the appeUant Insuraace Coinpany has undertaken fhe risk of such gratuitous passengers. 7. In view of the above, we are of the opiaion fhat no liability caa be fastened on fhe Insuraace Coinpany as the gratuitous passengers are not covered under fhe Insuraace PoUcy. It is for fhe owner aad driver of fhe vehicle to pay fhe aniount under award joiiitly or severally, Accordiagly, the award agamst the appeUaat is set aside. However fhe claimaats are JGree to execute ffcie award against fhe owner aad driver of fhe vehicle. 8. Appeal is allowed. Parties shaU bear fheir own costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Rao