IN ‘IHE HON‘B_LE I-EGH COURT OF 'CHHATTISGARH ‘AT BILASPUR. mac; MEAL NO‘.—_L§_7:‘OF 2004 livismn mm: ‘ \ ‘ ‘ L y ‘ Ramiwas~8harma son of late Ruliram Sharma, aged 7O years, Occupation- Nil. ‘Smt. Jaidevi wife 0f Ranmiwas Sharma, aged 63 years, Occupation~ 1” Nil. Must. Gayatri widOw of Bajrang Lal Sharma, aged 39 years, Occup ation— hou se hold Minor Ku. Mona Sharma E/o.late Bajrang Lal $harme, occupation student, aged 17 years. Minor Ashish Kumar Son oflate Bajrang Lal Sparma, aged 15 yeare, Occupation— student. Through— natural guardian mother l Must.Gayatri widow of Bajrang Lal Sharma. Minor Kumari Shalini xx D/og‘l ate Bajranglal Sharma aged 12 year, Occupation— student, through natural gu ardi an mother Must. Gayatri widow of Bajrang lal Sharma. No. l to 6 gall r are resident of i Bidéara, Raigarh Tahsil and Distt. ; Raigarh (0.6.). 1 C aints/ aplicant o. l EESPONDENTS = IL» m‘ \ { . l ma p N t APPELLiaNT : Unit'ed india Insurance Company 1 NON.-£PPLICA\IT No. 4 Limited; registered office, United 1H Endia House 24 whites Road, Madras Pin Code 600—014, through Branch Manager, United India, Insurance Company Limited, Raigarh (C.G.). it g a f VER$JS (Cl aim in appeal valued at Rs. ‘7,55,00Q/— ‘ohlm v ‘ 7. Shankar Lal Agrawal son of Narayan } /' Das Agrawal, aged 35 Kigarsi— Occupation i License holder vehicle driver,resi— i dent of Deepapara, Sariya at and P.O. g Sai‘iya, Tab. Sarangarh; District i Raigarh (C.G.) . I 8.‘ Anand‘ Bansal son of Beifan‘g Lal g /. Bansai, aged 32 years, Occupation- \1 Business,(P'artaar M/ss RaigarhCrushar RaigarhCrushar f 'Udyw, Tima‘rlaga) 3m. Jute mill Road 9" > Raig‘arh Tah. & Pistt. Raigarh {Co (3.). k\ t‘ i ‘ ‘ H ‘é /. Kishan Lal Agrawal son of Lalcvhgnd ‘ ‘ ‘ Agrawal; Iaged 55 years, OccC‘Egtion { Business, 3/0. village Poss Sariya ‘ Tah. 5arngarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). APPE (C.G.). ‘ Non—applicant N'o. l "t0 3. UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEI‘HCLE ACT 1988. l l i Apphllant Versus 30ndents HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ; BILASPURVVV’ MA. No. 132' of 2004 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Ramnxwas Sharma (Slnce dead) 85 others UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 ReS] APPEAL A? @ , ,. g/ DB: Hon’ble Shri I. M. Quddusi ' 8L I-Ion’ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shrl H B Agarwal Semor Advocate Wlth Ms Pragya Smgh Advocate t. ? for the appellant S r1 Alok Bakshl Advocate for the respondents No 1 to 6 None for the respondent Nvo 7 despite serVice of notice Shri H. S. Patel, Advocate for the respondent No.8. SEri Ratan Pusty, Advocate for the responderft No.9V \ ‘ ‘ i ‘ > \ ‘ ‘ Heard. Th1s appeal f11ed by the Insurance Company, arlses from the award dated 5th December 2003 passed by the Motor Acc1dent Clalms Trlbunal, Ralgarh, 1n Clalm Case No 10/2002 (01d No 29/1999), imposing the liability on the appellant Insurance Company for payment of compensationravvarded to the claimants by the impugned award to the tune of Rs. 7,55,000/ -. Since the- respondent No. 1 / Claimant No. 1 Ramniwas Sharma died, his name is deleted from the array of the‘parties. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 24.6.1999 at about 8.30 p.1n. in the evening deceased Bajranglal, with an object to perform the work of Munim (clerk) was going to M/s Gayatri Rice Mill, Saria, while sitting in the Jeep, bearing registration No. M.P.26 F/3174 at that time due to rash and negligent drivmg of the driver s of the vehicle 1e respondent No 7 (Shankar Lal Agarwal) herein, the Jeep tumcd and turtle, as a result of which the acc1dent occurred and Bajranglal dled 1n that acoldent The clalmants, being legal heirs of the deceased stating that by doing 1 Per I. M. Quddusi, J oRDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 24th day of September, 2010 )- 11(/ it i Ex‘ ?KW i{ w A 4m.“ '—< g , Mg ‘A.g ‘the work of Munlm (clerk) at vanous places, the deceased was earmng Rs 10 700/ per month filed a clalm case for award of a total compensatlon of Rs 58 89 400/ — under varlous heads. At the tlme of acc1dent the vehlcle 1n questlon was msured w1th the appellant The respondent NO 8 (Anand Bansal) was the reg1stered owner of the’vehmle, who had sold the vehrcle to the respondent No 9 (Kishan Lal Agarwal) The or1g1nal pollcy has not been flled by the cla1mants However a copy of the pollcy 1s avculable on record whlch shows that the passengers of the vehlcle, except the drlver, were not covered under the policy. It was a third party insurance with risk vis a vis However learned M A C T concerned has dec1ded the case solely on the ground that the case 1s covered by the decrslon 1n the case of New India Assurance Company Vs. Satpal Stngh and others, (2000) 1 SCC 237 wherem 1t 1s held that under the new Act an msurance pohcy covenng th1rd party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class. But this view has been subsequently over—ruled in the decision in the case' of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and others; (2003) 2 SCC 223, wherein Hon’ble the Apex Court held as under: “25. ‘bdvered by only the driver Section 147 of the 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of “public service vehicle”: 26. Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drlvers and conductors of public servrce vehicle and employees earned 1n a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen s Compensation Act. It does . not speak of any passenger in a “goods carriage”. In view of the changes in the relevan provisions in the 1988 Act v1s a—v1s the 1939 Act we are of the oplnion that the meaning of the words “any person” must also be attributed havmg regard to the context 1n which they have been used i.e. “a third party”. Keeping in View the provisions of the 1988 Act‘,‘LWe are o‘fthe opinion that as the provisions i thereof do not enjoin any statutory'liability on the owner of a t ' vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelhng in a goods vehicle, the insurersWould not be liable therefor.“ 27. Furthermore, sub-clause (i) of clause 7(b) 0f sub- section (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehiele in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, whereas sub—clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of ale vehicle 1n a public place An owner of a passenger—carrying vehicle must pay ‘ premium for. covering the risks of the passengers. If a hability other than the limited liability prov1ded for under the E Act is to be enhanced under an insurance policy, additional i l premium is required to be paid. But if the ratio of this l l 28. Court’s decision in New India Assurance Co. Vs. Satpal Singh is taken to its logical conclusion, although for such passengers, the owner of a goods carriage need not take out an insurance policy, they would be deemed to have been covered under the policy wherefor even no premium is required to be paidv" In View of the above legal position in the facts and Circumstances of he case in which the deceased was Sitting in the pffending vehicle as gratuitous passenger which is not covered under the insurance policy, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of ciompensation. Therefore, we allow this appeal and set aside the ii'npugned award dated 5.12i2003,_ only in respect of liability fixed upon the Insurance Company for payment of compensation awarded to the claimants However, the other portion of the award shall N is A‘é‘awa‘ Judge / water v t