/’ APPELLANT / Lmyisin @EME BEFORE THE HON’BLE 'HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. N0. i5 OF 2006 /The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Divisional Ofiice, Bilaspur, By Divisional Manager, i Th6 Oriental Insurance Company, Korba, TahSil & Distt: Korba (CG). — VERSUS - 1. mt. Char Bai, agPLICANT. V ’ Aged about 22 years, W/o Late Narendra Kumar, Resident of Sarvamangalanagar, Dulpa, Tah: Katghora, Dist: Korba (CG). W2. V Master Anmol Kumar (Minor) Aged about 11 years, S/o Late Narendra Kumar. W3. P/Agas Ram, Aged 5O years, ”H S/o Siyaram. 4 {\/ Smt.Titribai, aged about 44 yrs, f W/o Agas Ram, Resident of Saiwamangala Nagar, Dulpa, Tahsi1:Katghora, DistrKorba Chhattisgarh. ‘ O /- RESPONDENT/ . I lhj‘M y g @ RESPONDENT/NON- 5 Shri Shyamadhar, aged 25 years, XK ' S/o Late Bhojram, Resident of APPLICANT NO.1 Salwamangla Nagar, Durpa, Tahsil: Katghora, DistKorba, Chhattisgarh. (Dliver) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION b/ ”1'73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT, 1988. 4319 ‘ b RESPONDENT/NON— APPLICANT NO.2 g, hree Geeta Prasad Patel, Aged 37 years, S/o Late Govardhan Prasad, Resident ofLotnapara, Tahsil: Katghora, Dist: Korba (CG). (Owner) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION EENCH: HON'BLE AAR. I.M.QUDbU5I & HON‘BE MR. PRASHA‘NT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ'. M.A.‘Na.715i2006 ' The Oriem'a! Insurance Campany Ltd. Vs' Apneiianf Responden‘rs Smt Char Bai &o1'her-s f’i‘eseim Mrs. Chi-rm Shrivasfava, Advocafe for The dppellanf. r Mr. LS. Sahu, Advaca‘i‘e far respondenfs No.'1 ’ro 4. * Mn Sanjay Pafei, Advocafe for fhe respcndewts Nc.5 & 5, ORDER (Or-a0 (6* January, 2011) ii’vl. Quddusi. 3’; 1. Heard. d. This is an insurer‘s appeal ques'rioning ”the iiabiiiTy oniy. By way af‘This appeal under Section 173 of The Motar Vehicles Acf, 1988 (for Q) shot‘-1' ‘The Acf'), the appeiianf—insur‘ance Company hasimpugned The award dared 03.03.2D06 passed by fhe learned Addi‘rional Mofor Acciden'r Claims Tribunal: Korba (CG) (for shor‘r *fhe Tribunai’} in Ciaim Case No.32f2004 awarding a compensation of ‘Rs.4,58,000/‘— To The claiman'rs and ‘Fasfening iiabiiify on The appelianT—Insurance Company To safisfy The award. 4. FacTs of The case, in brief, are ThaT on 19.12.2003 Narendra Kumar (since deceased) was reTurning To his viliage in The TracTar-Troiiey bearing regisTraTian numbers CGIO—A~3295 8i CGIO-A-3296 respecTiveiy. Due To ‘ rash and negligenT driving of The driver of The said TracTor~Troiley, near Viiiage LoTanpara UTarda Road, said Narendra Kumar feii down and .came under The wheei of Trolley and susTained various injuries. He was Taken To The hospiTal, however, on The way he succumbed To The injuries susTained’by him. MaTTer was reporTed To The Police 3TaTion Pali, DisTricT Korba (CG). The claimanTsf respondents No.1 To 4 have claimed compensaTion an The ground ThaT They were dependenT on The deceased, who was The sole earning member in T'am.ily‘.}and due 3d his deaTh. They have suffered loss of income. /\x\\ r 5. Nan-applican‘rs No.1 To 3 have fiied Their wri'r'ren sfa'remem's and denied The cluim of The ciaiman'rs. 6. On The pieadings of The parfies, fhe Tribunal framed as many as six issues and af‘rer hearing ’rhe parTies in The maf’rer' and cansider‘ing The maTer'iai avaiiable on record, allowed The claim peTiTion of The ciaimanTs and awarded a sum of Rs.4,58,000/- as compensaTion. Learned counsel for The appellanT has submiTTed ThaT driver of TracTor- l\ Troliey in quesTion was noT having valid & éffecTive driving iicence on The daTe of accidenT and Thus, vehicie was piied in breach of insurance policy. She has furTher submiTTed ThaT risk of employee or any oTher person Traveling in The Trolley aTTached wiTh The TracTor was noT covered under The insurance policy raTher There was no siTTing capaciTy in The Trolley and The deceased was Traveling as graTuiTous passenger and Therefore, The appellanT is noT liable To pay any com pensaTion. 8. 0n The oTher hand, learned counsel Tor The respondenTs have supporTed The im pugned award. 9. We have heard iearned counsel for The parTies and perused The records of The Tribunal as also The findings given in The impugned award. i0. $0 far as The argumenT of learned counsel for The appellanT ThaT The driver ’ of The offending vehicle was noT having valid and effecTive driving licence aT The Time of accidenT is concerned, Shri V.N. PaTel (NAW-3), who was Clerk in The DisTricT TransporT Office, Korba, has sTaTed in his sTaTemenT ThaT The learner’s licence issued To The driver of vehicle-in-quesTion To drive heavy- goods vehicles was valid upTo 20.4.04 and subsequenTly iT was renewed upTo 16.12.04. In The cross-examinaTion, he has sTaTed ThaT iT is correcT ThaT prior To issuance of iearning licence To drive heavy goods vehicles, licence To drive lighT moTor vehicle was issued To him. This wiTness has also broughT along wiTh him, Xerox copy of The licence issued To The driver, which is also available in The record, and perusal of which goes To show ThaT aT The Time of accidenT The driver of offending vehicle was having effecTive and valid drivinglicence. Therefore, This argumenT of learned counsel for The appellanT .s noT susTaindble as according To. The definiTion of ‘LighT MoTor l Vehicie’ given in Section 2 (22) of The ACT, ‘LighT Mofor- Vehicle’ means ‘a ‘ rransyarr vefu'cfe or ommbys'fhe gross yefrtde weigh? of efrher of what}: or a mafar car or fracrar or road roiier rile un/aa‘en wet'ghr of any cf which} does no? excged' Z500 Miograms’ and i'r is an admiTTed posi’rion Thm‘ unladen weigh“! o‘F The Tractor-froliey is abduT 2250 kilograms which is iess Than 7,500 kilograms. i1. Now coming To 1’he nex'r argumen‘r of lear'ried counsel for The appeilanf Thar The deceased was si'rTing in The frolley and Thus no'r covered 'under The insurance pohcy being The grafuiTous passenger. .Fr'om perusai of The insurance poiicy, iT is evidenT ThaT The same is Kisan i’ackage Policy and There was no siTTing capaciTy in The Trolley and as such, The deceased was noT auThorized To Travel ,in The Trolley and in such a ' siTuaTion, sTaTus of The deceased in The said Trolley would be a graTuiTous passenger. Therefore, we are of The opinion ThaT The appellanT-insurance Commany should have been exoneraTed from iTs iiabiliTy. 13. For The foregoing reasons, we allow This appeal, seT aside The award daTed 03.03.2006 passed by The Tribunal in Claim Case No.32/‘2004 and hold ThaT The appellanT-insurance Company is noT liable To pay compensaTion To The claimanTs involved in The impugned award and The same shall be paid by The owner of TracTor-Trolley in quesTion. In case any amounT deposiTed‘ by The appellanT-insurance Company has been wiThdrawn by The claimanTs, iT will be open for iT To recover The same from The owner of vehicle. However, if The amounT, so deposiTed, has noT been wiThdrawn so far, The insurance company shall be allowed To wiThdraw The same. ResT of The condiTions and findings of The impugned award are hereby confirmed; IT is hereby clarified ThaT The claimanTs are free To execuTe The award againsT The owner of vehicle. " 14. No order as To cosTs. 15. CerTified copy as per rules. l Sdl- l Sd/- I.M.Quddusi [l l Prashant kumar Mishra Judge ‘ 1 Judge Roshani— "