"•••'•F';'' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SINGJ-E BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R. L. JHANWAR. J. Misc. Apoeal (C) No. 604/2008 ^ Appellant United India Insurance Company Limited. Versus RESPONDENTS Rohit Kuraar and others. ORDER POST ON p Januarv, 20 11 Sd/- R.L. Jhaiiwar Judge •V s^ X. %^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, W. A. (0 No.604 of 2008 APPELl-ANT (Non-Claimant No.3) United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Branch - Office Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Versus 1 Rohit Kumar, S/o Shri Subhash, aged about 20 years, R/o Old Minus Godaripara, Tah. Chirmiri, Distt. Koria (C.G.) 2. Sanjay Panika @ Gurubachan, S/o Dabbu Choudhary, aged about 23 years, Main Road, Gudaripara. 3. Sunil Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Satendra Sharma, aged about 37 years, Qrt. No. K. 18/6, Kothari Side Godripara, P.S. - Chirmiri, Tah. Manendr.agarh, Distt. Koria (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHiCl-ES ACT,J988 RESPONDENT Non-applicant No^l Non-applicant No,2 Appearance: Shri Dashrafh Gupta with Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel for fhe appellant. None for respondent No.1 Shri Vikas Pradhan, counsel for respondents No.2 & 3. ORDER (Passedon n.01.2011) This is an appeal by the insurer against the order dated 19.02.2008 passed by the 2" Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Manendragarh, Dist. Raipur in Claim Case No. 47/2007 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.85,000/- in favour ofthe claimant in an injury'case. 2. lt.is not disputed that on the date of incident Jeep bearing No. C.G. 16 ZD 0351 (henceforth "the Jeep") was insured with the insurer / appellant. It is also not disputed that on the date of incident, the driver i.e. respondent No.2 was holding a valid and effective driving licence. *& ^t' VSSfKS 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on the fateful day 24.02.2003 the respondent No.1, who was coming from Bacharapodi to Chirmiri in the jeep, met with an accident, as a result of rash and negligent driving by its driver / respondent No.2. Due to accident, the respondent received severe injuries on his head. 4. Seeking compensation of Rs.2,44,008.47 on various heads claim petition was filed pleading inter alia. Respondents denied the averments in toto byfiling theirwritten statements separately. 5. As against the compensation of Rs.2,44,008.47 sought by the respondent No.1 by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained in the motor accident on 24.02.2003, the Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties and submissions by them before it, awarded a sum of Rs.85,000/- as total compensation in favour of the respondent No.1 / claimant. The Tribunal directed to pay interest at 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of claim petition till its realization. The Tribunal directed the respondents to pay compensation amount to the claimant jointly and severally. It is this order, which is under challenge by the insurer under Section 173 ofthe M.V.Act. 6. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant fairly admitted that the said Jeep was insured with the insurer / appellant under Private Car Package Policy and as per policy premium was charged for covering the risk of third party and compulsory personal accident to owner-driver and also to WC to employee but no premium was paid for carrying the passenger or gratuitous passenger. The respondent No.1 / clairaant was travelling as gratuitous passenger and ought not to have been treated as third party but the learned Tribunal has wrongly erred in holding that the claimant/respondent No.1 was third party. On these premises, learned counsel urged that the appellant / insurer be exonerated. 7. On the other hand, Shri Vikas Pradhan, learned counsel for the resporidents No.2 & 3 argued in support of the impugned order. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal including impugned order. \: .1. •••^ •K. ?".. •;:'1'; ^ T;..-^' X •V 9. In this case, the only point that arises for consideration is as to who is responsible for payment of compensation amount, awarded by the Tribunal. On perusal of insurance policy, it is clear that for third party, Rs.700.00 was charged towards premium, for compulsory personal accident to owner cum driver, Rs.100.00 was charged and Rs.25.00 was charged for WC to one employee. The policy is Private Car Package Policy and was valid on the date of accident. 10. Rphit Kumar A.W.1 and Loknath A.W.2 have stated that the injured Rohit Kumar was employed as Khalasi and was travelling in his Jeep without payment and was getting Rs.1500/- per month from the owner. But for this, he did not produce any document. On the other hand, the witness of respondentsN.A.W.1 Sanjay and Sunil KumarN.A.W.2 have stated that Rohit Kumar wag not their employee. When they were returning from Bachrapodi, on way, Rohit stopped the vehicle and boarded the vehicle and was travelling as gratuitous passenger. It is clear from the policy that the policy is for Private Car Package Policy and insurance company did not produce any evidence to show that at the time of accident the Jeep was used for commercial purpose. It has also not come in the evidence of Rohit Kumar and Loknath that at the time of accident any passengers were travelling in that Jeep. This shows that the Jeep was used for private purpose and owner, driver and also Rohit Kumar were travelling in that Jeep. Since the Jeep is a private jeep, therefore, there is no need for the owner to engage Khalasi. Thus, it is clear that the injured Rohit Kumar was travelling as gratuitous passenger on the date of incident. Premium was also being paid for third party and in this case the injured Rohit Kumar is third party. In this view of the matter, 1 am of the •opinion that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the injured is a third party and was travelling as gratuitous passenger is based on clinching, legal and cogent evidence. 11. For the foregoing reason, l do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award requiring -interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 12. < In the result, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. ———' cjF'— R.L. Jhanwar Judge \: