.-^L~.<;'r" IN THE^HQN'BLE HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR rCHHATTISGARH) M.A. (C} No. rl^>\ Qf 2008. APPELLANT :- Insurance Company, United India NON-APPLICANT N0. 2 Insurance Company, Through Branch Manager, T.P. Nagar, Korba (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS > ^t^....-^ *<»";'-<-*^f'?_.J ^*w l'I^'V§ > :-1. Smt. Ramkali Yadav, aged 27 years, wife ofLateGajendra Yadav, ^ 2. Mangali Bai Yadav, wife of Late ^ Sukhlal Yadav, aged 55 years, 3. Motu Yadav, son of Late Sukhlal ^ Yadav, aged 23 years, 4. Ku. Ranu Yadav, daughter of Gajendra Yadav, aged 7 years, ^ 5. Tamn Kumar, son of Late Gajendra Yadav, aged 02 months, c- Respondent no. 4 and 5 being minor through their natural guardian mother Smt. Ramkali Yadav, all resident of Village Lalghat, Ward No. 37, Korba (Chhattisgarh), CLAIMANTS > 6. Bhagwandin Paraste, son ofSampat Singh Paraste, aged 55 years, resident ofQr. No.N.D. 63/7, Type 'A', Balco, Korba (Chhattisgarh). NON-APPLICANT N0.1 ^' APPEALUNDERSECTION1730^MOTOR¥EHICLESACT. <: ..^^•^s^^sr^ /ffS^\ VI j%s®i1! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. GULAM MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. M.A.fCI No.1281/2008 Appellant Non-Applicant No.2 Resoondents Vs Insurance Company, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Smt. Ramkali Yadgv and others Present: Mr. HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K. Kalamkar, Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 3. ORDER (Orall (15th July, 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appeltant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor VehJdes Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') against the award dated 14.12.2007 passed by the (earned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (CG) (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 112/06, fastening the liability upon the appeflanVinsurance company to pay compensation. 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that on 1.7.2007 the deceased along with his daughter Ranu Yadav was going from his residence at Lalghat to Balco on motorcycle Hero Honda bearing registration No. 12 G 6039. At the time of accjdent, the said vehicle was being driven by respondent No.6 and insured with the appellanVinsurance company. At that time, respondent No.6 by drivjng the said motorcycle in a rash and negligeht manner near Aluminum Gate Baico dashed the telephone poll and caused accident, as a result of which the deceased feli down and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was 30 years and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month as a driver. The dajmants, who are widow, children^ mother and brother of the deceased, had filed a claim petition ^lt r"— ^ J/ before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.27,00,500/- on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased arfd due to his death they have suffered loss of income. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal as also the impugned award. 5. The CIaims Tribunal vide impugned award partly allowing the claim petition awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- to the claimants and the liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the appeliant/insurance company, jointly and severally, along wi'th driver & owner ofthe motorcycle jn question. 6. In the instant case, upon perusal of the LCR we found that the insurance policy was a motorcycle/scooter package policy i.e. comprehensive policy. This is not the case that there was breach of any of the insurance policy conditions as the appellant/insurance company has not produced any evidence in this regard. 7. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority vide its Circular dated 16.11.2009, in which earlier circulars issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee dated 18.3.1978 & 2.6.1986 were clarified, addressed to all the General Insurance Companies have directed that insurance liability in respect of occupant (s) carried in a private car and pjllion rider carried on two-wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. Thus, it is evident that risk of the deceased was covered. 8. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. lO.Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge \^/