BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL FCINQ.s^r /2008 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS APPELLANT :- The Newlndia Assurance Company Limited, through - Divisional INSURER Manager the New India Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite- Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur [C.G.]. VERSUS 1. Phulesari Wd/o Kanda Ram, aged ^ about 35 years, 2. Kusunni D/o late Kanda Ram, aged about 17 years. 3. Ku. Sukhmet D/o late Kanda Ram, „ aged about 10 years. 4. Ku. Urmila D/o late Kanda Ram, aged about 08 years. No. 2 to 4 are minor through their mother Respondent no. 1 Phulesari) No. 1 (Phulesari) Wd/o late Kanda Ram, All by caste Majhwar, R/o village Patkura, P.S. Lakhanpur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) OWNER 5. Balram Yadav S/o Bokhe Ram Yadav, aged about 56 years, R/o village Patkura, P.S. Lakhanpur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C..G.) DRIVER 6, Dubey Ram S/o Patar Ram, by caste - Ghasiya, aged about 32 , years, R/o village Sur, P.S. & Tah. Sitapur, Distrjct Surguja (C.G.) CLAIM IN APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 3.39,000/- Being aggrieved by the award dated 20.12.2007 passed by nd 2"" Additiohal Motpr Accjdent Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur District i—----Y"; ^s u HII si\ ^il li.'l Ni:(; -*"? •\ \. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARHATBU.ASPUR D.B: APPEUANT RESPQNDENTS Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi. Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. JJ. M.A.fONo. 355/2008 The New India Assurance Company Limited. Versus Phulesari and others. Aopearance: ShriSourabh Sharma, counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (03.01.2011) Per I.M. Quddusj, J. This appeal has been flled against the impugned award dated 20/12/2007 passed by the II Addiflonal Motor Aecident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh) awarding Rs.3,39,000/- with penal interest @ 8% in case the amount of compensatton is not paid within the period of two months. (2) The brief facts of the ease are that on 03/05/2007 deceased Kanda Ram was sitting on the tractor bearing regisbation No. C.G. 15A/3182 and was going to village Jherabahar for bringing fertilizer. The vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.6 namely Dubey Ram and when it reached near river of village Jherabahar deceased Kanda Ram fell down from the tractor and fractor ran over him and he died on the spot. The deceased was working as a labourer. The ctaimants have claimed total compensation of Rs.12,30,000/-. l'?3 n S!sS:e5S^ v a ".^ :fy -/^- (3) Learned counsel for the appellant has raised three contentions; the first is ttiat the Insurance Company had no liability to pay compensation as the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license. The other contention is that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose which was not permissible under the policy. Further there was no sitting capacity of any person except the driver but the deceased was sitting over the tractor in question as a labour. (4) With regard to the liability of the Insurance Company, we have perused the registration certificates of the tractor and the trolley. The unladen weight of the tractor No. C.G. 15 A - 3182 and trotley No. C.G.15 A-3183 are 830 Kilograms and 975 Kilograms. The totet of the same comes to 1805 Kilograms. In the definition of the light motor vehicle given in ctause 21 af Section 2 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of whieh or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms." The weight of Uie tractor was definitely below 7500 Kilograms and therefore it was undisputedly light motor vehicle. We have perused the copy of the driving license of the driver of the vehicle and also the statement recorded by the Claims Tribunal of the A.R.T.O., Ambikapur, District - Surguja. Non-applicant witness No. 1 has stated that the driver was having a driving license to drive light motor vehicle. His driving license number has been stated as 2377/ABR/2004, therefore, it cannot be said that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license. (5) The next contention with regard to the purpose of the vehicle i.e. commerciai,' we have_pemsed the statements and the cross \^ "> examinations of the witnesses examined on behalf of the appettant- Insurance Company before the Tribunal. Applicant wltness no. 2 specifically stated that the tractor was going to bring the fertilizers belonging to Balram. In the registration certificate of the vehicle the name of the owner has been mentioned as Balram Yadav and therefore it cannot be said that the tractor was not being used for the personal purpose and was being used for commercial purpose. (6) With regard to the sitUng capac'rty it is to be mentioned that in the insurance policy the premium has been taken for Workmen Compensation to emptoyee and therefore it was ttie responsibility of the Insurance Company not to insure the workmen in the insurance policy but that has been included and theretore the third contention cannot be sustained and in view of the above, there is no adequate ground to interfere in the impugned award of the Claims Tribunal on merit. However, the Claims Tribunal has imposed the penal interest which is not proper and that part is only liable to be set-aside with the modification that the claimants would be entitled to get a simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fillng of claim petition till the payment ofcompensation is made. (7) Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part. The penal interest @ 8% imposed by the Tribunal is set-aside with the modification that the claimants would be entitled to get a simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment of the compensation is made. (8) No order as to costs. Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge "-» ^^ Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge