•yr" "t " 'r ^' JJV THJS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH ATBILASPUR S"M M.A. {Cl N0. <",z /2ff09-^Q]o APPELLANTS \^<^ ^!^^^ .^ ";>"y R ...•"' ^' ^y RESPONDENTS ?- J. JayKum.ar S/oBanshiLal Satnami, Aged about 47 years, R/o Bandhwa P.S. Laalpur Tahsil Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Bimlesh W/o Late Vijendra Kumar Ghosle, Aged about 37 Years 3. Saania D/o Late Vijendra Kumar Ghosle, Minor through Guardian Mother Bimlesh W/o Late Vijendra Kumar Ghosle, No.2 & 3 -R/o Daandgaon, P.S. Patharia Tahsil Mungeli Distt. Bilaspur ( C.G.) Versus 1. ShailKumari W/oLakhdn LalMeharAged 40years Cast Mochi, R/o Bhatapara " P.S. & Tahsil Bhatapara - District Raipur ( C.G.) ^2. United India Insurance Company Limited BUaspur ( C.G.) Claim before leamed fcaim tribunal - 4,95,000/-Rs. Claim awarded by leamed claim tribunal - 36,958 /-Rs. Claim in appeal - 36,958 /- ^?s. MISCSLLANEOUS APPBAL UNDER SECTION •Lfa^lf^MOTQR VSHICLS ACT ^ .»;.— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No.63of2010 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Jay Kumar & others VERSUS Shail Kumari & another LAPPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (SB: Hon'bteMr.N.K.Aaarwal.J.l Present Shri Pallav Mishra, Advocate for the appeltants. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 02.11.2011) This is owner and drivers' appeal against the award dated 26.11.2007, passed by the llnd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Mungeti, Distt. Bilaspur (for short the Tribunal') in claim case No. 12/07. As against compensation of Rs.4,95,000/- claimKl by claimant Shail Kumari by filing application before the Tribunal under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') ctaiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 13.05.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 36,958/- along with interest @ Bpercent per annum from the date of application tlll its actual payment. The Tribunal, on a close scrutlny of the evidence l«t,held: the accident had occurred due to rash and n^ligent driving of driver of Matador bearing registration No. CG-10-A-0824; Shail Kumari sustained injuries in the said accident; since claimant y , ^~' ~T ~ir 6. 7. Shait Kumari was sitting in the offending Matador (goods carriage vehicle) as gratuitous passenger in violation of policy conditions, exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant; assessed and awarded aforesaid amount of compensatlon in favour of claimant and as againstthe appellantsherein. Shri Pallav Mishra, leamed counsel appegring (br the appellants woutd submit : the Tribunat has erred in not accepting the oral evidence adduced by the claimant with regard to the fact that claimant was standing near the road at the time of accident and was not sitting in the Matador as gratuitous passenger, and thereby in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay eompensation to the claimant. On the other hand, Shri Pankaj Agrawal, leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.2/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. supported the award impugned and submitted : the Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence adduced and submissions made by both the parties has rightty hetd ctaimant was sitting in the goods camage vehicle as gratuitous passenger and therefore the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation, which does not call for any interference. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the order impugned inctuding records of the Tribunal. Undis{)utedly, no policy has been issued by the respondenVinsurance c6mpany covering the risk of gratuitous ~^B:- ^7 passenger sitting in the vehicle in question which is a goods carriage vehicle, therefore, core question arises for determlnation of this court is whether or not the claimarrt was sitting in the vehicle in question as gratuitous passenger at the time of accideni 8. A bare perusal of FIR placed on record and relied upon by the claimant would reveal the persons including clalmant were sitting in the Matador as passenger and as the said Matador turned turtle therefore one Shutrahan died and other sustained injuries. Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex. A/3) and MLC report (Ex. A/4) also reflects the same facts. The Tribunal has not found the statement of witnesses examined by the claimant as trustworthy. Surprisingly, owner and driver have not examined any witnesses in their behaff nor they themselves entered into witness box. 9. The Supreme Court in case of Orientat Insurance Company Limited v. PremlataShukla and others1, has held in para 13& 4 14 of its judgment as under : "13. However, the factum of an accident could also be prov«lfrom the first information report. It is also to be noted that once a part of the oontents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. Both the parties have relled thereupon. It was marked as an exhiblt as both the parties intended to rety upon them. 14; Once a part of it is relied upon by both the parties, the learqed Tribunal cannot be said to have committed r2007(13)SCC-476 ^ ,ff!~-^^ .., •-wV l'"a.K.-,»9Br any illegality in relying upon the other part, irrespective of the contents of the document having been proved or not. If the contents have been proved, the question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not upon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had notbeen proved in accordance .withlaw, woutd not arise." 10. When the matter is examined in the context of above broad features of the case, 1 do not find any inrirmity in the findings of Tribunal tliat claimant was sitting in the vehicte as gratuitous passenger and in the approach of Tribunal in exonerating the Insurance company from its liabitity to pay compen^tion to the claimant. 11. For the reasons mention®!hereinabove, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dlsmissed. No order asto costs. , Sa7- ^•K.Agama; ..ludne Sahu ^