^r-^-;?^ ?a§ ^SRg?^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.G.) .MPe£USC2...^ ^^. MISC.APto^HON-NO. 3<BD h— APPELLANT Non-Applicant No.l .^- , ^:2ti^ ^4^^-"' ?T Phool Sai, aged about 72 years, S/o. Late ; Shrt Shjva Prasad Chandra, agriculturist, resident of Village Nandali, P.S. & Tahsil - Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS Claimants r» Non-Applicant No.2 1. Gurubari Bai, aged 24 years, . widow 6f Late Shn Sindur Lat adas Ram Prasad. 2. Rajkumari, D/o. Late Shri Sindur Lal aljas Ram Prasad. 3. Vjjaya Kumari/ aged 2 years, D/o. Late Sindur Lal, alias Ram Prasad. The respondent No.2 & 3 through the guardian ad-liten Mst. Gurubari Bai, the mother. 4. Amrit Lal aged 48 years, S/o. not known, Viltage Odakara, Tah. Jaijaipur. ^M-^M^^r - ch^^^^C'^ 5. Mst. Akajsarhin alias not known, ^nli° w/o. Amrit Lal Odakara, Tahsil Jaijaipur. Oi^-^cw^^- chywp^-Cc-^) 6. Rahul Kumar, aged 3 months, S/o. 2>alll/lb Late Sindur Lal alias Ram Prasad, through the mother Mst. Gurubari Bai the guardian ad-liten. Alt the resident No.l to 3 & 6 Vjllage Nandeli, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District. Janjgjr-Champa (C.G.) 7. Bhartiya State Bank, Jaijaipur, through the Manager, Bharti^ ^^ ^' ".^., HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON'BLB L M. QUDDUSI & HON»BLB G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M.A(0 No. 380/2011 APPBLLANT RESPONDENTS Phool Sai Vs. Gurubari Bai & ofhers MISC. APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT. 1988 - .*. APPEARANCB: Mr. M.D. Sharma, counsel for fhe appeUaat Mr, Basaat Dewaiigaa, counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, counsel for respondent no.7, ^ Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J, ORAL ORDBR (02.12.2011) 1. This appeal has been iiled by the owner agamst the impugned award dated 31,08,2010 passed by fhe Addl, Motor Accident Claiins Tnhunal, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (C.G) in. Clami Ca^e No.38/2008 on the ground that the vehicle was not iasured aad the responsibility to get jthe vehicle msured was of th.e respondent-Bank as fhe vehicle was purchased by him on loaa graated by fhe Bank under Hypotliecation Agreement aad he was xnerely a borrower of the Baak. 2. Brief facts of fhe case are that Tractor bearrag Regn. No.C. G. 11- A/4462 was purchased by the appeUaat by takiag the loan irom respondent No.,7 ie., State Baak oflndia»The said vehicle was hypothecated m favour of the ^aak on hire purchase scheme. It is alleged by the appeUaat that on 07.05.2008 ^^^^ ^ ^ deceased Sundarlal @ Ram Prasad had gone to work as labourer in Tractor bearing Regn.No.C.G. 11-4462, After completing agricultural works of appellaat, he was retumiag on fhe said Tractor. The said vehicle was beiag driven by Prenilal. When th-e vehicle had reached to Gaajipara turaing of Jaljaipur, suddenly soine cattie carae 011 fhe .way. When fhe driver tded to save fhe catde, fhe Tractor became uncontrolled , aad feU down ia a caaal, as a resulf of which, deceased Siadurlal @ Rainprasad as well as driver Preialal died on fhe spot. The deceased was workiag as labourer ia the said Tractor owned by appeUaiit axid was beiag paid xnonfhly wages of Rs.3000/-, The claimaats berng dependents/legal representatives of Uie deceased have filed claim petition under Section 163-A of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for fhe award of a total conipeasation ofRs, 17,32,000/- on various heads. 3. The leaaied Claims THbunal has held that the vehicle m question inet with accident ra which Siadurlal died; the driver was not.haviag valid aiid effective drivmg Mcence aad tlie respondent Baak was not Mable to pay corapensation fhough tiie vehicle was mortgaged wifh fhe Bank, 4. We have heard leamed couusel for fhe parties aad have also gone fhrough fhe records, S. It has been provided in section 146 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act 1 that no person shaU use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow aay ofher person to use, a raotor vehicle in. a pubUc place, unless there is ia force in relation to fhe use of the vehicle by fhat person or fhat otlier person, as tlie case may be, ^l a policy of msurao.ee complyiag wifh fhe requirements of Chapter XI. But leamed counsel for the appeUant has submitted that for the last 2-3 years, the Bank was getting fhe msurao.ee of the vehicle done by makmg premium itsetf aad was deductmg fhe ainount of premium of irisurajice policy from the account offhe borrower towards repayDient ofloaa. 6. We have perused fhe temis ofthe agreenient between fhe Baak aad the appeUaiit dated 14th December, 2004. In Clause 2(III)(b), fhe followmg has been mentioned: "The Borrower(s) shall at all tim.es keep.such iteins of nxortgaged preraises as are of iasurable nature, iasured agamst loss or daraage by fire and ofher risks as laay be required by the Baak affil shall deliver to fhe Bank all such poUcies, It shaU be also lawful for but not obMgatory upon the Baak to uisure aiid keep iasured by debit to fhe Borrower(s) account(s) the mortgaged preinises as are of iiisurable uature, The proceeds of such msuraace shall at fhe option of fhe Baak either be applied towards replaceinent of fhe inortgaged preniises or towards the satisfaction of the Baiik's dues hereunder," 7. In view of fhe above provision, it was not the subject matter before the Claims Tribunal to decide the burden of payment of msuraiice premium or m case of default of non-payment of fhe amount of msuraace premium fhe burden of payment of comLpensation amount aad fherefore^ ia oiir opiaion, ttie i Tribunal has rightly imposed the liabitity upon the cwner of the vehicle to pay coinpensatioxl, However, in case fhe owner feels aggrieved, it is always open for him to file a suit before appropriate foruin for recovery of fhe axaount of conxpensation ^ n s. bwll" 8. agaiast the Baak for the aUeged default regardmg non-payment of insiiraiice preiniura aiid failure ia gettiag the insuraace poUcy. In view of fhe above, we disiniss this appeal, No order as to costfs), ^^ Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao