.y- T w^ \l\\^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR,/ CHHATTISGARH ^-^ ^ A..^^ ^r^j^f No;^/T~~ OF 2003 " ^rt' ^ •^ M.A.No. ^ (Memorandum of-Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act/1988) ^ BE APPELLANT NON-CLAIMANT / ^. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Sadar Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS .CLAIMANTS ^ y':^y ^yy .^^' ^L^...-' '^!^' NON-CLAIMANTS 1. Shekhuram Namdeo,aged about 50 years, S/o Late Tirloram, . occupation NIL 2. Janpati Bai/aged about 48 years W/o Shekhuram Namdeo, house wife Both residents of Sattipara, Ambikapur, Police Station and Tehsil Ambikapur^ District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) ^^3. Chandeshwar Gupta, S/o Jhavdi ^ Sao, vehicle owner, resident of viilage Belkota, Police Station Batoli, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) , 4,Santosh Gupta,S/o Chandeshwar Gupta, occupation driver, R/o village Belkota, Police Station Batoli, Tehsil Sitapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION > y 173 OF MOTQR VEHICLES ACT 1988 ^^' Claim in appeal valued at Rs. 80,000/- ^^^ . ^' Arising out of award dated 24.4.03 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), —1J-':-'[:-••"- SE 1 '^ ^s 1 <. HK3H COURT OF CUHATT»GAraiAT BILA8PUR RfllSG.APPEAL N0.717^F^(03 APPELLANT NON.CLAIMANT RESPONDEMTS Oriental (nsurance Gompany Umfted. Versvs Shelchuram Namcteo and (rthers. APPEALUNDERSECTION 173 OF TNEMV. ACT. 1888 (Sinate Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaani^l. J.l Present : Shri8udNrAgrawal,counselfortheappenartt. Shri T.R. Chandrakar. counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, counsel for respondente No.3 &4. l'; (Passed on3m Day ol S^terotoer, 2018) This is an insurer's appeal against the awaRd dafcKl M04-2008 passed by Third Additional Motor Accictent Cterims Tribunat, Ambikapur, Surguja <for short th®Trjbunaf) in Motor Ctaim €^»eNo. 48/2002 awardtng Rs.80,000/- as cempensatton In fiwour ef tlw respondents No. t & 2, hoklti^ the appenant ateo liabte for te payment to the cteumants t.e. respondents No. 1 & 2. 2. Facts in nutshell are as undw On 20-05-1997 Pramod Kumar Namdeo (sinee ctowased) i.e. son of claimants/respondents No. 1 &2 wss tnweUng IR the catMR @f Mtni Truck bearing reflJ^ration No. MP 23^/7235 ator^ wfth 'BancJ Pariy* as a gratuitous passenger. Near Radhapur tarrier, tti®said Truck dashed the barrier as a reau^ of wtateh deGeasecl Pramod Kumar fell down, sustained muJtipte injuries, was admittad to ftimary Health Centre, Sitapur and on the same day, he succuinbed to the injuries In ttw sald accident. 3. On an applfeation fited by respondente N©.1 ^ 2 unctor SeoUon 168 ofthe Motor Vehictes Act (for short the Ax^). th®teamed Trtbiwial awarded Rs.80,000/- as compensaUon in faveur <rf the cteiiTOinte/resporKtents No. 1 & 2 after hdding the appettant/trwurance Company Mabte for ite paymentjofrrtly and severalty. ^^ s-^ 4. Shri Sudhir Agrawai, teamed couRsel appearing for th® appellant/lnsuranee Company would eontend that indisputably, th® deceased was sitting in the Truck Le. the ©oodsVeMcte aa a gratuitous passenger for whfeh the appellant/lt»uranc»Cempany is not statutory tiable to cover sueh risk. He would fvittiw contend Ihat It is not a case of the owner that by takhig extra promium, ttr appeltant/lnsurance Company has insared the deoeased. Therefor®, learned Tribunal has erred in fastoning the liability <rf ps^inent of compensation upon the appeltantflnsurance Gompany. 5. On the other hand.teainod eeunsel appearing for the respondents supported the award and submitted that the leamed Tribunal has rightlyfastened the liabiUfyofpaymenteFceiiipensatton on the appellarrt/tnsurance Cempany and the same deserves to be uphetd. 6. I have hearcl leamed counsel for th®partiw aml peryeed ttie record. Also perused the copy ef ttie poltey produced by ttie appeltanl/lnsurance Company. 7. It is settled law that under ^cfion 147 oftt»A^, the Insyranee Company is not requlred te cover the risk of the passengere travelltng in the goods vehteto. As per poli^ produced l^ ttie appeUant, tiw Insurance Company has not underteken any extra rtek l.e. th®risk of passengere travelling in ttie goods vehicto by eRtoring into spectel contract with tha owner ef the vehicle and by (^iaBgfe^i oxtra prwnium therefor. tn such circumstances, in the conaidered opinion of thte Gourt, the teamed Tribunal has erred in fastenii^ tt»liabiltty on the appellanl/lnsurance Company for payment of eompensatton and the award passed against the appellant/lnsuranee Gompany is not sustainable in law. 8. For the foregoing, th® appeal prefwred by the appetJanVlnsurance Comparay deseives to be and i8 heeeby attowed. The impugned award against ttie appeltant 'vs hweby sat astde. However, it is macte ctear that the rwponderrts No. 1 & 2 are Ire®to execute ttie award against the r^pondente No. 3 & 4 l.e. ttie owraer and driver of the vehicte (Truck). It is atso made d»arthat the appellanVlnsuranca Company is free to recover the anioyrrtdepositecl by it and which Is disbursed to the claimante by the Trtt>ynalt from the owner and driver of the vehtele by flUng eKecutfon pefitton Iwfore ttwi ^•^^ V^;^^.^^A 1-'^5, \;3.y ^3. Kvr Tribunal. However, if any amount is not dlsbuiwd to the clalmwif, the same may be r^unded to the appelIanVlnsuBanc®Company. 9. No order asto coste. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge