IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) M.A.rONo. /.^^^: _Pf20Q9, io!? ' APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT No. 2 ^^f^ RESPONDENTS :- Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Near Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS :-1. Smt. Sulena Bai, aged about 39 years, wife ofjitanram, 2. Jitanram, aged about 45 years, son ofLate Bhanwar Say, 3. Ratan Singh, aged about 17 years, sonofJitanram, 4. Anuradha, aged about 12 years, daughter ofJitanram, Respondent no. 3 & 4 being minor, through their naftiral guardian mother Smt. Sulena Bai, All resident of Chhoti Koni, Police Station Koni, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).- CLAIMANTS -\ / 5. Sukhram Singh, aged about 30 (u^ years, son of Ram Kenwat Smgh, resident of Village Darima, District Svu^, .'ftc^oo Surajpurl(Chhattisgarh). ^ ^ NON-APPLICANT N0.1 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OJF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. <€r:sas"^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTBGARH AT BNJ^SPUR M.A. fONo.1362 Of 2009 Appellants Non-Applicant No.2 Respondents Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limlted Versus Smt. Sulena Bal & Othere APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hon'bte Shri Justtee I.M. Chiddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Smt. h/teera Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri NP Chandravanshi with Shri Sudhir teshyap, Advocates for the respondent No. 1 to 4. 2. ORALORDER (Passed on 6m day of Se|rtember, 2010) This is insurer's appeal fited agatost the award dated 04.08.2009, passed bythe tst Additional Motor Accident Clalms Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short the Tribunal') in ctaim case No. 96/08, awarding Rs. 3,64,500/- as compensartt<m in favour <rf clalmants agalnst the appellant/insurance conyar^ jointly and severalty. Brief facts of the case are that, on 10.(^.2008, Sukhan Slngh (since deceased), vriiile driving Mrtorcycle (Bajaj Dtecover) bearing registration No. CG-15-E-2594, alt of sudden, he saw a dog and lost hls balance and fell down as a result of whidi he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. //'' i 1 li. ~" 'V S '^. f'n3<vr^^!^. -1? A^' ^ 3. The claimants preferred an applicatton before the Tribunal under Sectton 166 of the IMotor Vehtoles Act, clahning compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,13,332/- for the death of deceased in the said accident. 4. The Tribunal, on a close serutiny of the evtdenee led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,64,500/- s® compensation in favour of the claimarrts agatnst ttie insurance companyjointly and severatly. 5. The insurance policy covers the rtek of owner-driver in case when the owner hlmself is drivingthe vehtele, but in the instanl case, the owner was not driving the vehfete but it was the deceased who was driving the vehicte whteh met with an accktent and as a resuK, of which he died, therefore, in our oplnion, the insurance company is nrt liable to pay compensation as the deceased who was driving the vehtele cannot be said to be a third party in terms of Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act. 6. -In view of above, we allow this appeal and s^ aside the awaid dated 04.08.2009 a^ainst the appeNant/Unlted tndia Insurance Co. Ltd.only. 7. However, the in the facts and drcumstances of tto case, there shall be no order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- I-M.Quddussi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge h