^•:^t®^/.fj s IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) No^ 1^^ / 2008 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS :1 ['^ f f •>•? .* •" w^^ <w ^«w:^-lyi- Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Vishwanath Gupta, aged about 32 years, ' Santlal Gupta, S/o Vishwanath Gupta, aged about 44 years, Rampal Gupta, S/o Late Jamuna Prasad Gupta, aged about 45 years, Indrapal Gupta, S/o Late Jamuna Prasad Gupta, aged about 43 years. No. 3 & 4 are R/o Village Podi, Post Tejpur, P.S. Ramanuj Nagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Mohan Gupta S/o Late Ramkripal Gupta, aged about 38 years, no. 1,2 & 5 are R/o Village Pandri, P.S. & Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/ DRIVER owner VERSUS :!., Ritupal Yadav, S/o Motiram Yadav, occupatipn-Vehicle driver, caste Ahir, R/o Village Narayanpur, P.S. Ramanuj Nagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) :2./- Dashrath Prasad @ Chhotelal BiS!Si;81J!IBSSBgBSSIi8JBNISSSK B®si3s9?eH Ei88§3SsB;!Kli3KSBKi!188illMB8!BK^?:':?jSi:%KS'-'? EMBS8BS!SSUgliSliKSSiS'j"i" . .. ^:" -'::': ^ .'•°'^, w^3*i? •M* * '..;1 /^3~^ G^ Gupta, S/o Rameshwar Prasad, occupation-Vehicle Owner/ business, R/o Village Devnagar, P.S. & Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Insurer :3. The Oriental Insurence Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 •3 ^l '^ -^y. SlEStB? ^ ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH, BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDU8I 85 Hon'ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ APPELLAMTS: RESPONDENTS: M^A (Cl No.1377/2008 Sautosh Kuinar Gupla & others Vs. Ritupal Yadav aad others MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLB8 ACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr, D. N. Prajapati, counsel for fhe appeUants. Mr, Abhishek Sinha, counsel for icspondent no.3. Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J. ORAL ORDER (19.07.2011) This appeal has been filed by the Clauaaats agauist fhe impugned award dated 28.8.2008 passed by fhe II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C), Suiajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G) in Claini Case No.60/2006 dismissiag the claini petition of the AppeUaats who were clauning damages for fhe loss of clofhe bales iu trausit by a hired Vehicle which feU irito a caxial fixiva. the culvert. The facts of the case as per the version of the claimants are that on 13.09.2003 after loadiag their cloth ba1.es (bundles of clofhes) in Vehicle beanag Regn.No, C.G. 15/0987, respondent no. 1 Ritupal driviiig the said vetiicle to reach fheir destiny, but on fhe way while crossing fhe Sutiya caual, Surajpur, due to floods in the caaal, fhe vehicle which was being driven in rash aad negl^ent niaiiner became unbalaaced and fell iuto the carial, as a result of which two persons died and fhe clothe- bales had drifted away ia the caaal. The claunants have filed claim petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for fhe award of coinpensation ofRs. 1,45,000/- onvarious heads. The question for determiuation before us is whether the claun petition of fhe appeBaats was inaiatainable at aU; whether fheir ;oods caa be tenned as property of fhird party aad whefher fhere is coUision between the two vehicles and rlnim is not agauist auy other vehicle, but against fhe vehicle in which the goods were benig carried. In fhis regard, it is necessary to peruse the provisions of Section 147 an^d 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which are reproduced as under: 147. Requireiaents of policies and Umits of UabiUty.—(1) In order to coniply with fhe requirenients of this Chapter, a poUcy ofinsuraace laust be a policy which— (a) is issued by a persoa who is aa authorized iasurer; and (b) iusures the person or classes of persons specified in ftie poUcy to the extent speci&ed in sub-section (2)- (i) a'gasast any Uability which inay be iacurred by liim iu respect of fhe deafh of or bodily [injuiy to auy person, iacluding owner of the ;oods or his authorized representative carried ia fhe vehicle] or damage to aay property of a thud. party caused by or arising out ofthe use ofthe vehicle in a pubUc place; (ii) against ftie deafh of or bodily uyuiy to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arisiag out offhe use ofthe vehicle in a public place: Provided fhat a policy shall not be required- (i) to cover liabiUly ia respect ofthe death, arisiag out of aud in fhe course of his einployinent, of fhe v 'y y? exaployee of a person insured by fhe poB.cy or in respect of bodily injuxy sustained by such aa einployee arising out of aad in. fhe course of his einployinent ofh.er Uiau a UabUily arising iinder fhe Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of1923) ia respect of the deafh of, or bodily iajuiy to, any such einployef (u) to recover aay contractual Uabilily. ExpJcination.— For the reinoval of doubts, it is hereby declared that fhe deafh of or bodfly iajuxy to aay person or damage to aay property of a third party shatl be deenied to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, tbe use of a vehicle ia a pubUc place notwithstaadiug that the person who is dead or iujured or the property which is damaged was not ia a public place at the time of the accident, if fhe act or oinission which led to the accident occurred ia a public place. 165. Claims Tribunals.—(1) A State Govemment may, by notification ia fhe Official Gazette, constitute one or m.ore Motor Accidents Claiins Tribuiials (hereiaafter in this Chapter referred to as Claiias Tribiinal) for such area as laay be speci&ed ia the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon clauns for coinpensation ia respect of accidents irivolving the death of, or bodUy injury to, persons arisiag out of fhe use of inotor vehicles, or damages to aay property of a fhird party so arising, or bofh. Explanation.— For the reiuoval of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression 'clalms for coinpensation ia respect of accidents iavolvuig ftie death of or bodity injury to persons arisiug out offhe use ofinotor vehicles" includes claiins for coinpensation luider section 140 [aad section 163A]. 5. A perusal of the above quoted provisions shows fhat iu section 147(l)(b) offhe Act about requireinent ofpoUcies and limits of liabiUty it has been specifically mentioned that fbe poUcy of iasuraace inust be a poUcy against aay Uabitily which inay be iacurred by him ia respect of the deafh of or bodily iajuiy to any person, iucluduig owner of the goods or his authorized representative camed ia the vehicle or daniage to aay property of a third party caused by or arisiug out of the use of fhe vehicle in a pubUc place. Therefore, fhe insurance inust be confined to the risk of death or bodUy injuiy to auy person includiug tbe owner of the goods loaded iu the vebicle or his aufhorized representati.ve, but nothing has been said about the goods loaded ia fhe vehicle and with regard to damage. Aay property of tturd party is a separate class wbich is not for the goods already loaded ia the vehicte aad ftie claioi is arisiug out of the use of that veiy vehicle. In aection 165 also, fhe words "damages to any property of a third party" have been used. Therefore, fhe third party would be oiily where the claun is in respect of the other vehicle aad not fhe same vehicle in wbich fhe goods are loaded. Therefore, in no case, the goods of the clatniants/appeUaats caa be tenned as a property of third party and the claun petition was not maiatauiable at aU. However, we are of fhe view fhat the claiin petition was rightly disinissed by tbe clauiis Tnbunal but it should bave been disinissed as not inaiataiaable aad not on inerits. Hence, the fiadiags given by the Tribunal are held rwnest iu the eye of law iu a non-iaauitauiable claiin petition aad accordingly, the f 8. unpugned award dated 28.8.2008 is niodi&ed to the above extent. In view of ttte fact that fhe clami petition was not inaiiitaiuable, it wiU be open for fhe claimants to approach appropriate foruin under fhe law available to thein for redressal offheir grievance. In fhe result, this appeal staads disposed ofwith the aforesaid observations. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge G.Minhajjufim Judge Rao