a : 'iS^^Sta" i::Z'~5f:'!VE.?Upi.EES?^ ' ^•S»&9ssS] IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR nfi;^ii M.A. (0 N0. /2008 ^npi 'ff i f! Wl ^ APPELLANT J^n-ApDlicant No. 3 ;he New India Assurance Company Pvt. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS Aoplicants ...:•; ^ ^^•/' ^••^.' ^''^^ ...'•'' ^A--''' ^ y' Non-Applicant No. 1 2. i/ Sukram, S/o Maikuram Bhariya, aged about 45 years. Smt. Duwasiya Bai, W/o Sukram Bhariya, aged about 43 years. All Resident of Teduram Pendra, P/S. Pendra, Tehsil Pendraroad, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Kamlesh Kumar, S/o Sukul Bhariya, aged about 27 years, R/o Tendupara Pendra, P.S. Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Non-Applicant No_2 ^ Jagdish Prasad Prajapati, S/o Visesar Prajapati, R/o Tendupara, Pendra, P.S. Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 QF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellant MlsceUaneous Appeal (C.) No.1374 of 2008 The New India Assurance Company Pvt. Ltd. versus Respondents Sukram and others Present: Shri A.K.Athaley, counsel for the appellant. Dr. Rajesh Pandey, counsel for respondent No.4. None for other respondents. MiscellaneojjsA@eeal under Section 173 of the_Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passedon 19th April, 2011) Per I.IVI. Quddusi.J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the New India Assurance Company Private Limited against the award dated 22-8-2008 passed by the 1 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.266/2007 insofar as the Claims Tribunal imposed liability to pay compensation upon the insurance company. 3. Case of the claimants, as stated in the claim petition, is that on the date of accident, i.e., 13-2-2007, deceased Kamlesh Kumar son of Sukram, under the instruction and employment of non-claimant No.2 Jagdish Prasad Prajapati, had gone to Village Kanaimar as a helper/co-labourer in tractor bearing registration No.MP 18 H 1463 and trolley bearing registration No.MP 18 H 1464. In connection with the said employment, when he was coming to Tendupara sitting in the same tractor and trolley in the night, the tractor and trolley turned turtle near Village Bacharwan due to its rash and negligent driving by non-claimant No.l/driver Kamlesh Kumar son of Sukul Bhariya. On account of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his person and died on the spot. The incident was reported to the Police Station Pendra. The claimants, i.e., father and mother of the deceased preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.13,50,OOO/-. 4. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,21,500/- in favour of the claimants holding liability to satisfy the award on the non- claimants jointly or severally. 5. The deceased was an occupant of the tractor. There was no sitting capacity except for one person, i.e., for the driver. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company has submitted that the labourer was covered only for the purpose of loading and unloading of the material and not for travelling as there was no sitting capacity and the labourer could not have travelled while sitting on the tractor or trolley. The deceased also could not have come within the category of third party, therefore, the insurancecompany is not liable to pay compensation. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, to our opinion, has force. The occupant of the tractor in question cannot come in the category of third party. Therefore, the /'^fas Irf" ^ ^ 8>.».»:,..- t '^Si^^- ^/ v*y .^ 3 . insurance company could not have been held liable to pay the compensation. 7. In view of the above, we allow the instant appeal in part and set aside the part of the impugned award by which the insurance company has been held liable to pay the compensation. The insurance company is, therefore, exonerated from its liability of payment ofthe compensation. 8. Atthis stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has submitted that liberty be granted to respondent No.4 to challenge the amount of compensation. 9, There is no need to grant such liberty as it is always open for respondent No.4 to challenge the award on the question of quantum in view of the fact that we have allowed the instant appeal in part and the insurance company has been exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 1 Sd/- ; IJVI.Quddusi ; Judge | Sd/- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal