..^ 14. ^' l1!.- •^. IN THE mOH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR {E.G.) M.A.(C) No?^ OF 2007 fAPPEAL VALUED ATRs.3.69.500 /-) APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEmCLES ACTS. 1988. i^^;^ ^ ^^^^^. APPELLANT (N0N-APPLICANT N0.3) •'sc;':v V ^^^^- ^•-•c (APPLICANTNO.l) (APPLICANTN0.2) (APPLICANT N0.3) (APPLICANT N0.4) (APPLICANT N05) (APPLICANTN0.6) (APPLICANTN0.7) (APPLICANT N0.8) (APPLICANTN0.9) ^lJnited j India Insurance Coinpany Ijimited, Throug]^: Its BrancM Manageri, Branch- Qffice,1 Jagdalpur, Distt.-Ba.starr (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Jhanak Bai Wd/o-Late Ramlal, ^ Aged- 42years, 2, Tijiya Bai Wd/o-Late Ramlal; Aged- 40years, ' :3., Ashok Kumar, S/0- Late Ramlal, I- 22years, Dhamiendra Kimiar,SA3- Late Ramlal, Aged- 20 years, §, • Mahendra Kumar, S/O-Late Ramlal, aged-lSyears, ,:6, Ku.Sarita D/O-Late Ramlal, aged-24 years, '^ Ku.SadhnaD/0-Lat^Ramlal, aged- years, 12: years, :9^.- Ku. Geeta D/O-Late Ramlal, aged-18 years, •^ Ku.Kavita D/O-Late Ramlal, aged-23 ^^ III ^. ' '•' ;'^. '\ (Respondent no. 5 & 7 are M Through thek natural Guardian^ Mother- respondent no. 1) Respondent no.Ol, 03, 04, Q5, 06 and 07, are R/0-Village- Sonarpal, Banjarapara, Distt.- Bastar(CG). Respondent no.Q2^^ aM^9^^^^ ^ are RA^-Hikmipara^ 1]^^^ ^ Stand, hi fi^ ^ IQafft^^ Kirana Gali, Anupama TaUdes Road, Jagdalpur, Bastar(CG) Distt.- (NON-APPLICANT N01) 10. Ganesh Prasad Gupta, S/0- R.S.PrasadGupta,aged-45yeaTS, Occupation-Driver,R/0-Near Star Petrol Pump, Jagdalpur, Distt.-Bastar(GG) (NON-APPUCANTN N0.2) (NON-APPLICANTNN0.2) -^ : 11. Rakesh Patwa, 8/0-Shivnaresh Patwa, R/0-Nayapara Jagdalpur,, Distt.- Bastar (CGj) (Owner ofTata 407 bearing registration no. CG 17ZG /0266). i ^ Shivcharan S/Q-Rainlal,aged-22 ^ years, R/Q-Hikmipamfa fiwrt of Kanhaiya JKu-ana Gali, Anupama Talkies Road, Jagdalpur, Distt.- Bastar(CG) V. ^; '\ ^-i ii ^ ^l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH, BILA8PUR DB: HON*BLB I.M. QUDDUSI & HON»BLBPRA8HANT KUMAR MI8HRA, JJ, M. A(Cl. No. 519 of 2007 Vs. MI8C. APPBAL U/S 173 OP THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT. 1988 APPEARANCB: Mr. Dashrafh Gupta, counsel for ffae appeUaat Mr. Maaoj Paraajpe, counsel for respondeats 110.10 & 11 that is driver and owner. None for respondents 1 to 9 aad 12 fhough served. ^ ORDBR (ORALt (25.04.2011) Per I.M. OUDDU8I. J. 1. This appeal has beeii filed by the Insuraace Compaay agaiast the iaipugnedaward dated 29.01.2006 passed by tlie « learaed First Additional Motor Accident Clauxis Tribimal, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G) ia Claini Case No.67/2003so far as it relates to liability as weU as quaatuim part. 2. Brief facts of the case accordiag to fhe version of claimants arc that on 10.05.2003, deceased Ramlal was going to Devda Market ia vehicle bearing Regn. No. C.G. 17/ZB/0266 for his busuiess, On fhe way at Vudalgaon Dabha fhe said veNcle which was beiag driven by respondent no. 10 Gaaesh Prasad Gupta ia a rash Swi negUgent manner met wifh accident, as \. a result ofwhich, Ramlal received grievous iajuiies aad died Mallarani Hospital,^ Jagdalpxir during fhe course of treatment. At fhe time of accident, he was aged about 45 APPBLLANT Uxiited India Insiiraace Company Ltd RB8PONDBNTS Jaiiak Bai and ofhers ^ '^ years, He was ruiuiiag a xiiobile pan shop aiid was eamiag Rs. 150-200/- perdaybyseUmgPcinsm different markets. The claimaats beiag legal representatives have filed claim petition u/s 166(1) readwithSectioa 140(1) ofthe M.V. Act, 1988 for fhe award of coinpensation to fhe tune of Rs, 10,55^000/ - on various heads for the death of flie deceased. Learaed claims Tribunal held fhat the ofiTendmg vehicle was involved ia fhe accident in. which fhe deceased died aiid it has awarded a total coinpensation of Rs.3,69,500/- which fhe clainiants are entifled to receive firom fhe appeUant aiid respondents 10 and 11 joiafly and severally, We have perused fhe Lower Court Records as weU as fhe findiags given ia fhe impugned award. The seatmg capacity of fhe vehicle ia question which is Mght goods vehicle was 1 ^ 3 that is one dnver + 3 passengers/occupaxits. The iasiiraace poUcy fUed by fhe claiinaats on l^iebasis ofpolice record shows fhat fhe risk of fhe driver-cum- owner/passengers was covered, Besides this, W.C. limited to six members has also been shown and premium has been paid forbofh i,e., owner-cum-driver/passengers aad W.C. to eBiployees. The copy of the poMcy filed by fhe Insuraace Coinpaoy is not an aufhentic policy as ia that poHcy fhe word 'passengers' is imssiag aad it contains fhat tfae compulsory' PA to owner-ciim-driver is Umited to Rs.2 lakhs M- ^' ! . ' whereas ia fhub origmal poUcy, copy of whieh has been recovered by fhe f>oUce, no such mention is fhere. Learaed 'v'..";-, coimsel for the appeUaiit submits fhat itwas fhe mistake of fhe computer but whatever fhe poUcy was issued ia whatever L /' ^^ ^ fonn is to be acceptable aad fhere is no scope ofchaage of conditions wifhout the consent of the iasured. Siace fhere was seatmg capacity of ffaLree persons besides fhe driver, fhe risk of fhe deceased was covered by fhe policy, 5. At fhis Stage, it is to be notlced fhat thene was seatlag capacity ia the vehicle fhat is one Driver plus 3 passengers/occupaats aiid fhe iasurance compaDy has iasured six W.C. exnpkyees Wifhout seeiag that fhere was 110 capacily of six persons to sit ia fhe vehicle, The itisux'aiice Compaay should look iato this aad take appropriate action at its end regardmg making a poUcy aad fhe permissible UmAts, 6. With regard to the quaatuin, learaed counsel fbr fhe appeUaat does notwant to press this appeal. 7. In view of the above facts aad circuinstances, fhe appeal has no force aad fhe same is disnussed. No order as to ^ost(s). IG^ Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge '^. \