t V >~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR iyi.A.(ClNo.335/2007 Sinaie Bench: Appeilant. Non-aDDeiIant No.3 Hon'ble Shri DiliD RaosahebDeshmukh, J. Branch Manager, United india Insurance Company, Staduim Road, Transport Nagar, Korb^, Tahsil & District- Korba (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS Respoiidents- / : 1. (ADoiicant No. 1) (AppiscantNo.2) 2. fNon-applJcant 3. N6.11 (Nona^0piicant 4 No,2) Jaipal Patei, S/o Ghunj Ram Pate!,aged about 33 years, Occupation-Business, R/o Santhi Nagar, Hardi Bazar, Korba, Tahsil- Katghora.Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh) Smt. Santibai, W/o Jaipal Patel, aged about 29 years, Occupation - House Wife, R/o Santhi Nagar, Hardi Bazar, Korba, Tahsil - Katghora,Distt. Korba (Chhattlsgarh) Vinod Kumar Jaiswai, S/o Shri <Raj Naresh,' Aged about 25 years; Occupation - Driver, Caste - Jaiswal. R/o Hardi Bazar, Korba, Tahsii - Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) iaxmi Narayan Yadav, S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Yadav, Aged about years, R/o Hardl Bazar, Korba, Tahsll - Katghora, Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh) ^' Present: ShriDashrathGupta,learnedcounse!fortheapp©iiant. ORALQRDER (Passed on 16th March, 2007) The foilowlng ora! order of the Court was passed by Dyio Raosaheb Deshmykh^J. / Heard on I.A. No. 01/2007 which is an application for exemption from fiiing certified copy of the order passed under Section 170 ofjhe jVlotor Vehicle Act. This appeai is against an order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act. i IA. No. 01/2007 is considered and aliowed. "\.. Heard on^dmisston. By the impu^neciorderdated 5.12.2006, learned M.A.C.T.,Korba has awarded intenni compensation of Rs. 50,000/- agalnst. the appeIlanVlnsurer. iW^NI'f —z' •^ ,^ Brieffacts are that on 21.9.2005 at about 7.30 A.M. Vikas Prasad Patei, aged about 9 years was seated on the tractor trolley bearing No. C.G. 11-A/1002 and C.G. No. 11-A/1003. The sald tractor trolley which was driven by non-appiicant No. 3 Vinod Kumar Jalswal in rash and negiigent manner turned turtle resultingin death of Vikas Prasad Patei. Shri Dashrath Gupta, leamexl counsel for the appetlant did not dispute the foilowing facts: (a) That the above mentioned tractor troiley was under a vaild pollcy of Insurance issued by the appeliant. (b) That the tractor trolley was driven by non-appllcantNo. 3 Vinod Kumar Jatswal at the time of acddent v^hlch turned turtieand (c) ThattheacddentresuitedindeathofVikasPrasadPatei. The oniy point urged by the iearned counsel for the ^ppeiiant Is that there is a serious breach of the policy of insurance since the tractor troiSey was not insured for carrying gratuitous passengers and in this view of the matter, the appeiianVinsurer was not under any statutor/ ilabllity to pay compensation. Reliance was placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Bommlthi Subbhavamma and Others: reported in 2005 (2) TA.C. 1. Sub-ciause (3) of Section 140 ofthe Motor Vehlcies Act provides that - In any ciaim for compensatlon under sub-section (1), the claimant shal! not be required to plead and establish that the death or pfermanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongfui act, negiect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicie or vehicles concerned or of any other person. Sub-clause (4) of Section 140 further provides that a claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shai! not be defeated by reason of any wrongfu! act, negtect or defauit of the person in respect of whose death or permanent dlsablement the daim has' been made nor shaii the quantum of compensation recoverabie in^'Tespect of such death or permanent disabiement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responslbiiity for such death or p^t^naraent disabiement. Jn this view of the matter, while considering an aj:ipJication under Section 140 ofthe MotorVehJctes Act, the Court is not required to enquire whetherthere was a breach of policy or not. In an application under Section 140 of the iViotor Vehlcles Act in a death case, the Court is only required to consider the foilowing factsj, -3 ^ Kvr (a) That the motor vehicJe was under a vaiid policy of insurance. (b) Thatthe motorvehjde metwith an accidentand (c) Thattheaccidentresuitedindeathofaperson. Since ail the above three requirements are undisputed in the present case, the appeliant/insurer was liabJe to pay interim compensation under Section 140'of the iViotor Vehicles Act. The case law cited by the iearned counsel for the appeliant is distinguishable since it does not deal with the liability of the insurer jn such matters under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicies Act. if the learned M.A.C.T. atthe time of fina! dJsposaJ came to the condusion that there was breach of poHcy and the insurer was not liabte to pay compensation, the appeliant/insurer may recover the amount of interim compensation from the owner of the vehicie. In this view of thematter, there is no substance in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- DiUp Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge \-^ ) '\ Kff'1"