',.»„•*J- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURIC.G,). Misc. Appeal No(c:^£^.../2008 111H)SI Beas APPELLANT (Owner) C^-O^ :(~a"'" 'A' ^ ^••:^^^^ ,,..»* RESPONDENTS GHANSHYAM SINGH WADHWANI aged about 33 years S/o Man Singh Wadhwani R/o Sindhi Colony, Lal Bag Rajnandgaon Tah. & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS 1. DEVIDAS KURREY aged about 45 years S/o Late Phuldas Kurrey Satnami 2. URMILA KURREY aged about 40 years W/o Devidas Kurrey Both residents of Village : Kuwachowk Dabripara, Nandai Ward no. 42 Rajnandgaon Tah. & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) YIJAY KUMAR alias MOHAN 3. aged about 42 years S/o Rajarain Satnami Driver R/o Satnamipara Nandai Road Rajnandgaon Tah. & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) m: /. (5) 4. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Through : Branch Manager Branch Office : The National Insurance Company Limited Kamthi Road, Rajnandgaon Tah. & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ./. ^' • ;'•' ^ y' n aT^t VI R;li<»i wnanigwmi; ^Sf T, wnl'M'i'o, Fa|ciiyi< >^i-^d^:--l-l^'-----^200§5 sn^f 'fw ('^y^) S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaarwal 03.11.2009 Shri VG Tamaskar, Advpcate for appellant. Heard on admission. This Is owners appeal, Tribunal (FTC), Rajnandgaon alongwith interest @ 6 perc claimants and as against th^ Insurance company from its li^ *wii-f4^'wwrf i? fs<er ^fw?T'. ^3i{TO3?A?I directed against the award dated 27.08.2008, passed by the ^dditional Motor Accident Claims (for short 'Tribunal') in daim case No. 20/08 whereby and wher^under total sum of Rs. 2,95,000/- ^nt per annum from the date of application till its payment fias been awarded in favour of appellant/owner exonerating the bility. The brief facts of the ca^e according to appellant are that, on 15.08.2007 when the dec^ased Vivek Kumar was sitting in the Tractor bearing registrat|ion No. CG-08/B-0770, the said Tractor turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver and deceased succumfaed to the injuries sustalned in the said accident. ! Theclaimants preferred an application before the Tribunal under Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Driver/Owner and Insurance Company ofthe vehicle. The Tribunal, on a cloie scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material aVailable on the record, and on ra^^ryF^K^T.TFij^qTj-f^—t-'S/95—-i l/2GO/i—l,0(>.00;>. /—r-ft*"iw>iw.^wsc'"^ 181 ^••1 §.i 3?!^'^BT ^NT ^SH a?I^9T »>W<S WCTI T, '^tWT®,[sjtfl-H'-K ...^l^f^4y--\-^-^-^---- STi^l'q'Ri' (•iptyEetl) TOnwaftasn^i 1 qTOfwi^i itproi-^ ts^ ^TRCT! ^sjiroan^i appreciation of policy of in^urance (Exhibit D/t), recorded a finding that deceased person have been fastened upon the considered opinion of this substance. As per the poliey was not covered under the policy and exonerated the appeltant^nsurance company. Shri Tamaskar, leame^l counsel for the appellant would submit that by taking extra pr^mium of Rs. 25/- one employee is also covered under the policjy, and therefore, liability ought to nsurance company. I have heard the lesjmed counsel appearing for the appellant, perused the reccjrd and order impugned. In the court, this appeal is devoid of Exhibit D/1), only one employee Is covered. By taking extra pre^nium (PA), owner-cum-Driver was also covered but pottey was npt issued covering risk of occupant or labour sitting in the Tractot-, moreover, the sitting capacity of Tractor was only one and urpdisputedly the Driver was driving the Tractor at the time of acddent. In view of the above, since the policy was not issued covbring risk of occupant sittlng in the Tractor as gratuitous pass&nger/labour and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay any compensatipn to the claimants. In the result, the app^al being devoid of substance Is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at admisstor[stag&. i Sd/- ! N.K.Agar-wal .1........._... „....._. Judge ri^^^^^i^l-^^ra-n^T^—'•'S/95—11/200^—1.00.009. E'?T Eyi^.....