IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR [CHHATTESGARH] M.A.fC) N0. ^^ ) OF 2007 @ Mdnn Rsr"fi raS'^^Sy.SJ ^S.t'^i.H'a; APPELLANT ^URANCE ^' RESPONDENTS CLATMANTS ^ /TKe Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Opposite High Court, now shifted to Rama Trade Centre, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.6.) VE R SU S l.^Smt. Lalita Devi, aged about 25 years widow of Late Shri Chhotelal .^•••^ II. ^•••""-^ 2. Ku. Dipika, b/o Late Shri Chhotelal .^'"^"..••^r' "'"".'. e\y Jy^y ..-• ^ Suryavanshi, aged about 11 months. .^^•^ ..••'". !-3':y^.<.--< ^^y^' (Through its Natural Suardian Mother Respondent No.l Smt.Lalita Devi) Both residents of Village Tifra, P.S. Chakarbhata, Tehsil & bistrict Bilaspur (C.6.) 3.^1-fridesh Shrivastava, S/o Late Shri Madhusudan Shrivastava, aged about 35 years, R/o Near Nagorao Shesh School, Juna Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali, Tehsil <& Oist. Bilaspur (C.6.) Laxmi Prasad, S/o Shri Samaruram, Caste,- Suryavanshi, Village - Urhtum, P.S.Sarkanda, bist. Bilaspur (C.6.) ^^' APPEAL U/S 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT A6AINST THE AWARb/ORbER DATEt) 03/02/2007 PASSED BY THE SIXTH UPPER MOTOR ACCI&ENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. BILASPUR. &IST. (BILASPUR) IN C.T. N0. 104/2006 HKUI COORT €WCaiHATTBMaAiaa. WBAIWUR Apraau.ANT: RBSPon^arTB: AP^MAAITT; RBWOIIBaBHTB: DB: vm «ts,«M.ipmciwa » |. •^ilHdi-TOBBMB,J3 N.A«a N0.831/2007 TIic Orfental Insuxance Compaay Lanaied Vs. &at LaBta D»daad ofhers N.AICI voSBoiaofyr The OriNital tosniance CoiapMiy UanitBd Va. Mst Putin Bai and otbacs IU8C. ApmBAtA nnsstt SBCTOOai ITS <W THB IKIPCOSt. VBHKajBSACiK1988i Aypwacaa.ettt Mr. Qliandyam Patel, couascl finr •thc typeUaut/hasurancc Compaay. Mr, Gautam Khcteapal, couuscl fbr lespoulaits 1 to 2 in M.A© No.831/;M07and ^pondeuts l to3mM.A(C). No.850/2007. Mr. Suresh Kuxnar Yeiana, counsd. for icspcMadent Laxnal Rrasad Per IJI. OUDDUai. J. OStKLWXWIXt (s».o».aoti) Thcse arc •tttt two appette ffled by the Iiisiuaace Compaay against thc iinpiigned award Idated 03.02^007 pasacd scparatcfy m CIaim Case Kto. 104/2006 and 103/2006 by tiae VII Adxlittaial lifotor Acetdcnt ClaiBa»TUbunri Stoqtur, Djatt. Bite^tur, Chhattistgarh- Sincc both (hcsc <ypeds arise out the same accidcnt, ttiey aie bciag disposcd of by ftiis conamon order. 4. s. Brief &cts of fhe case as per ffae versioa offhe claiinaats arc that on 09.02.2005 deccased Shail Kumar Suiyawanshi and Chhotdal Survanshi were goicig to Takhatpur by Bajaj Bcocer bearing Regn.No.C.G.10-B/3526 bdoi^jed to noa-applicaat no. 1 HridesU Shrivastava. On the way at vOlage Khamhanya, all of a suddea, a vehicte has cocne fiona fi»atdirection aad due to this fhe niotor cyete becanae uncontrolled and met wifh accident, as a result ofwhich, Shail Kuatar aad Chhotdal both (Ued in the said aceideat The k^l Bepresentatnws/depMidente Chhotelal and SIiail Kuinar have fited separate daun petitions beiog Claim Case Nos. 104/2006 & 103/2006 respectivety u/s 163-A offhe Motor Vehiclcs Act for the awatd ofcoiapeusatioas on various hcads. Leamed Clauas Tribunal havn^ xegard to &cts situation and naaterial on recard hcld fhat white the motoiicycle No.C.G.10- B/3526 fhe accident took place, as a result ofwhich, Chliotdal and Shailkuanar died; fhe claunants are eudtled to receive coiapensation and 1wwm% fhus held it has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,20,500/- ia Claim Case No. 104/2006 aad Rs.4,25,500/- in Claixa Case No.103/ 2006 which the daiinnnts are entitled to reeeiffe finni the non-appUcaatsjointty and severalty. We have perused the tower Court records as weU as thc impugned awaxd. / Onty the widow of tfae deceased Shail Kuiaar bas stated that fhe motoicycte was beiag drivcn by SbaSl Kunaar but no eye- witness has corroborated facr statement. It is not disputed that the widow ofthe deceased was not an eye-witness. Thcrefore, it is not kaown as to who was driviiq; the inotoxcycte. In thcsc ffpm:- drcum.staaccs, aince it was a paclc^e polky it is to be ascertained as to who would be eutitled to get fhe bexiefit of msurance. 6. In ttus regmd, carcular dated 25th Ncwember, 2009 issued by the Head Offlce of fhe Insuranc^ Company wifh reference to Cacular 16.11.2009 issued fi?um tosuxancc Regulator Dcvelopment Aufhority is relevant here and quoted below: TOGB ORIBNTAI. D^UBAIK®COBtPANY L'n>., HBAD OFFICB, NEW D®UB DEPTT.: MOTOR dated 25& November, 2009 CIRCULARNO.HO/MOT(u/w)/282/2008-09/CR-6473 CIRCULAR TO ALL BOs/Dos/ROs, I.A.D., v%aaace Deptt. rr DEPTT. OSTC., ALL DEPTTS. OF H.O. & C.M.D'S SEGTr./SERVICE CENTRB AT HANSALAYA & HYDERABAD. UABIUTT OP IHSURANCSB <»MPAmBS IB RBSSPBCT OF occopAm' GP A pRreA-nt <^R AMD WLLKMI RIDBR Ul A TWO WHBBI^R UBDBR 8TAIIDARD —OTOR PACKAfiB POUCY (AUBO CAIAEaD COMPREHBK8IVB POUCV). We have reccived Cncular NO.IRDA/NL/CIR/ P&U/ 073/11/2009 dt. 16.11.2009 finm BRDA wbCTeby tt is confu-med fhat iasured's liabi y ia respect of occupan.t carricd in a Private Gar and PiBton Rider raaried on two wheelers a coveted uiuier the Standatd Afotor I^clsage Polify. IRDA has fiirfher coaifitmcd (tiat nde vanous Circidars issued after detanffafMotar, tttere has been no change in (he scope afttie staiidard covcrs. A copy ofthe CirouJar is endosed &>r reccud & ready refereiice. 'nie tenas of the cover.as per the Motcw PacJk^e PoUcy &r Private Cars aiid 2-wheder as y»enia Policy wonlmg Section 2.1(^ are vieiy eteaCaud are recon&'med by the IRDA's Cmcular. It is, theiefoiie, advised to nnTn»yiin*F.ly rcwicw sSl caaes wliere appeat hasbeeu fikd on fhe grouads fhat iiisutcr is aot Uabte fiw occupants of REivate Cars and Pfflion Ridcr m a 2-wheeler zmder fhe Motor Package PoBcy. If the appeal is based solety on these gt»undstfaen it inust be inainediatefy wifhdianm. Ifffaereaic offaer groimds for fiUng appcal fhen fhe case naust be examined on Biet^-- 111111 • ^ AUB jo ixiaTHseunquiiai jo nopsanb aip. 'soBeayt'o^ mo. SBAt p3SB333p 3tp JI imp p(3q 'J3A3AU»q '»] 10U JO 3p>&> jaysm aq^ Simaip SBA f^a Aapqspig pres ait> jo pasBaewp aq» -iMpgqA o» SB toi% ai(l jo aARa^saxn qaiiq3* J0»om aq»jo aen jo UOSBM Aq aoBpi 3{oo»^aappOiB aq^ jaq^aqA 0»S8 8BM HOtlBISpjBUOO 8)1 JOJ 3S<MB q3n[A UORSanI) SfHO svy 'vcaafe^ uaaq 8atABq &s^oS asoBXttsvi aAretisqaiduioo B IBip 8Bi& anssi pres aip auiBuatap <q papaaooiid jBiiRquy^ wy T[3in[A no astniaid OTU, •3{qt»utt4iiit<iu ssa '8861 'VV s3[3Pia'A .«q<W J0 V-C9T uopoas japun uoRBOtpidB SOB '.KssBSf^ot svy. jpsunq teraq CBy. 3IBUBP .[3t((3ttM 01). SB UdRSanb 3Tp aiIIpIU3»3ptq. papaaocud aBUBS aq). a»n[sap^nq 3toA> sayaat svf^ 8it(AUp SEBM. oqA of. SB t[siiq®(ea-o!(sesfp yya SSM.faapiose pres a^y. o»nop'eiai xn uopB»s aai(od Mp ya p^Bpoi (yiji) i-iodaa uoi)LBnu<yii Vsxfd aq» VSW. paaipou iBanquj, wu. •fr, aapnn se ^ Biad apt& p(aq uaaq eeq 11 roaisqA gyf, 038 S feOOB) 9SSVO pTO iA»aI««P»a•«Apa»rn*n^TOdmoo aawasot lK|na|<o 'm »inooamaidng aqi 3[q,uoH jo uoisioap aip jo akaifA ui uopBsuadTBoa fa9 af 3[qe aq ppioA si.Tiapaacbp Jtaip. 'japu uoi{iid B SBM <n(A siiqsaad paseaoap 0^4 STR jo aao 'ai<gaiaiu, 'iBptaito aAoqe vc^ jo AkaiA wc paiaAoo ei siapaqA ois4 aq»jo .rapu uciillid aip. pire An{od aAisiraqaidtnoo «SBM ejapaqA oa»sHp. jo An(od aoKaxnsBEi aqt 'assa i.uetsui STB. ui 9&wfs Wf qaug HaovNWi ivyaNao • HONIS "H 'N -/P8 l-asmtredaa jotoi^ soSBtO PBSH 01 saseo iBadde gurpi^ai nas[B> IIOROB uugaoo pae tdraoai dSpaiasoa^oB A[pitt}l *S3FKIC[0<I 38GE^O©tI -i€)»oy^opirai paiaAoo 8apq vsa.fOao a»BAuajo spiednooo -to JOpig wiiHiy jo spanxxiSi aip. uo s^adcfe 8mig luoig isissp sao®ojno TBI(I pa.msira aq ISUTO »T '^s^ •pstuaoHoo a^easyi fBoaSay sq^ ^q iras[Rt aq ^aaddB jO tioiitBnnpiioo 8aipi88ai uoisiaap paB ^^/ 9. ainoiiut of compensatk)n by fhe iasiucr wouM not arisc, opuui^i; *if wc presume that the deceased had no coinpreheasive poHcy even thea fhe clnimants arc eotJQs^- to compensation beeause cyidence ia sitait as to who was driwing the ofifeiuling vehiclc.' In this view offhe matter, Mr. Gautoai KhetTapsd, appcaring on behalf of fhe respoiidents/clmmante in bofh fhe appeals hawc subntitted fhat he does not want to press the claiia ia vespect of oiie axid fhe claim. petltion ia tespcct of tfac ofher bc aBowed tteatin^; as claiin petitioa ofpiUion rider. Now fhc contention of fhe leamcd coiuisel for the appdlant/ iasurance company is fhat tfae dtiwa^ licexise was aot produced. Hawever, fhe insurance coiapaay as wcU as fhe legal heirs of fhe deceased persons bofh were ia &e sanie position as no body oould aak the deceased to pioduce his/fheir driwmg license. Thc insuiance compaay has also not madc any cfforts fhoi^h fhcy had means to discl(»cor prewe the fact of haviiig driviiq; Ucense by tfae deceascd. Certainfy fhe claimants who were tegal heus of fhe deceased caaaot be blamed for that Further, in sub-sectioa (2) af Section 163-A of thc MVA pravidcs fhat ia aay claim for compraisation under Sub-acctton (1), fhe claimant ahall not be required to ptead or cstnWish fhat fhe death or permaaent disabtement in respect of which fhe claun has becn xaade was due to any wrongful act <M- ncgtect or default of the owner of fhe vehicte or vehicles conceraed or of any ofher person. 1*BF ^ ?- Thercfore, ia these circiimstances, it i»difficult to darect productmn of driving Iteease as both fhe oceupaats of fhe inotorcycle are deceased. '? 10. At tfate st^e, Mr. Gautain Khetrapal, lcamed counsel for the respondents/claimants does xiot press the claiatt petition ia respect of deafh of ShaU. Kumar. Therefore, tfae depeadeats of other deceascd Chhotelal wouM be entitted to get coiapensation. Hence, bofh fhe appeata are djsposed ofwitfa a directton fhat fhe awaid made in icspeet of death of Shail Kuinar in Claim Casc No. 103/2006 againstwhich M.A(C).No. 850/2007 has been fited, is set aside and fhe daim petttioa filed by the dependents of Shafl Kumar is disxnissed as not pressed. 11. The compensation awatded in Claua Case No. 104/2006 shafl be paid to the r-1nimnnta ofdeccascd QihotelaL 12. In the result, bofh the appeals aie disposed of. No onter as to cost(s). Sd/- l.M.QUddusl Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao •' nnn' •TTI-