t CP (^ Singl& IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.) M.A.CO No. .-7>.?° OF 2006 <APPEAL VALUED AT Rs.2.20.160 /-) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEmCLESACT. 1988. APPELLANT (NON-APPLICANT N0.7) 1.^% J:'i'^€<"'...^a ^^'f^-""" ^y ^.^•" (APPLICANTNO.l) (NON-APPLICANT N0.1) (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) (NON-APPLICANT N0.3) (NON-APPLICANT N0.4) (NON-APPLICANT N0.5) (NON-APPLICANT N0.6) ^ :2,^ ^'3.C ^ ^ :6-/ ^ United India Insurance Company Limited, Through: Its Branch Manager, Branch- Office, Ambikapur, Distt.-Surgja (C.G.) VERSUS Subhan S/o-Bhamsa, Aged about 30 years, R/o-viU.-Paiga, P.S.- Kamleshwarpur, Tahsil- Sitapur,Distt.-Surguja (CG). Tameshwar S/0-Salik Ram,Aged- 30 years, Driver, R/o-vill.-Paiga, P.S.-Kamleshwarpur, Tahsil- Sitapur,Distt.-Surguja (CG). Geeta Prasad Yadav, S/0-Sudama Yadav, aged-40 years, Dayal Ahir S/0-Tulasi Ahir, aged- 40 years, Muralidhar S/O-Ram Pukar, aged- 45 years, Udhoram 8/0-Sudama, aged-40- years, Rameshwar S/0-Arjun Yadav, / aged-35 years, All are R/0- Vill.- Keshra, P.S.- •Kamleshwarpur, Tahsil -Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) HI6H COURT OF CHHATnSfi^H AT BILASPUft &IVISIONBENCH: HON'BLE ttR. I.M.QUbbUSI A HON'BLE &R.PRASHANT KUttAR ttISHRA. JJ. Appeilnnt ftespondents M.A.fc) N0.390/Z006 United India Insurance Company Limited Vs /Aanqari Bai Aothers Appellant ResBondents AepellanT RespondenTs M.A.trt No. 590/2006 United India Insurance Company LimiTed Vs Subhan & others & M.A.fc) No. 642/2006 Vs United India Insurance Company Limited fAanohar & others Prosent: Mr. boshrath 6upta, Advocate for the appellants in ail the appeais. None for The respondents though served. OfySER (OraD (14t" March, 2011) I.M. Qud'd'usi. J; 1. The above three appeals are being dispsed of bythis common order ds atl these appeais have been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the common awwd dated 31.8.2006 passed by the leorned 1 Additional iAotor Accidents Claims Tribunai, Sar.guja (Ambikapur) (for short- the Claims Tribunaf) in Claim Case Nos. 61/05, 75/05 A 76/05 parTially allowing the claim applications of the claimants .-and fastening iiability on the appellont-Insurance Company To pay the amount invoived in the impugned oward. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 11.6.2004 at about 5.00 p.m. in the evening deceased persons namely Aklu, Ratan © Ramkumar <& Sundari were traveling in the tractor bearing registration number MP27-B-3776 along with others, The said Tractor, due to rash and ne9ligent driving of its driver, turned turtle as a result they sustained grievous injuries and died. The claimants of the aforesaid deceased-^iersons have filed three separate ciaim applications before the Claims Tribunal seeking compenscrt-ion to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs. 10.00.000/- & Rs.1,00,000/- respectively on various grounds. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, afrer considering the issues framed by it and also the evidence brought on record by The parties, allowed the claim npplications of the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.2,20.160/- Rs.3,92,000/- & Rs.1,63,000/- in Claim Cose No.61/05. 75/05 & 76/05 respectjvely and sad'dled the appellant herein with the liability of paying the amount involved in the impugned award. The Claims Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount awarded. 4. We haye heard learned counsei for the parties and perused the records of the Claims Thbunal as also the impugned awar-d. 5. In the instant case It is admitted foct that the occupants were sitting on the mudguard oftractor in question, whereas sitting capacity ofthe tractor is oniy one i.e. driver, thus it is clear that the deceased persons were unauthorizedly Traveling in the tractor in question and therefore, they are not covered under the insurance poiicy which was issued for agncultural purposes only. Further, though the tractor was being used for agrieultural purposes but there was no occasion for the deceased persons To sit over the Tractor when the driver wos plowing the agricultur.al field. In view of the fact that there was breach of insurance policy, we are of the firm opinion that the appellant-Insurance Company could not have been heid liable to pay compensation and should have exonerated by the Claims Tribunal. 6. For the foregoin9 reosons, w/e allow this oppeal, set aside the common award d'ated 31.8.2006 passecf by the Tribunal in Ciaim Case Nos.61/05,75/05 A 76/05 so far as it relates to fastening of ijability on the appellant- Insurance Company and hold that the appellanT-Insurance Company is not lidsle to pay compensation to the claimants involved in the impugned award and the same shall be eaid bv the owner of tractor in suestion i.e. respondents No.5 To 9 herein, In case any amount deposited by The appelinnt-Insurance Company has been-uiithdrawn bythe claimants, it wili be open for it to recover the same from the owners of vehicle-in-question. Mowever, if the amount, so deposited, has not been withdrawn so far, the Insurance Company shaii be ailowed to withdraw the same, ftest of The conditions qnd findings of the innpu9ned award are her-eby confirmed. It is hereby clanfied that the ciaimants are free to execute the award against the ourners of vehicle. No order as to costs. 7. A copy of this order be placed in M.A. Nos.75/05 & 76/05 8. Certifisd CODV as oer ruies. ~~——-.. .Jf!— Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge Prash Sd//. »KC"MBte