HIGH CQURT QF CHHAMISGARH, 3ILASPE3R \ Misez. Appaai Kc». 72112094;- Orieg‘tal Iasm‘gmcs Ca. Ltd. Through its Divisional Manager, Malviya Nagar, Burg (CG) Vexsus DB. Gogwami, son cf Gopibail Goswami, agsd 50 wars 2. Smt. Parwati Goswami, Si’o DB. Goswami, aged 45 years Both Rio 116w Kharsipar, Blqilai—lg N€ar Mangal Bhawan, Tahsil emd Dist: Dang {Claimgmtég Basant Kama: son of Kaohlmm Halba, rlo Viiiaga Borgahan, RS. Aljunda, Distt. Durg (CG) AP?ELLABJT KNSURER 1. RE ?ONDENT$ go Shri Abhisok Sinha wi’dl Shxi Ghenwhyam Fatal, Advoc'ats, for the appellal1t. - Shri Amiyakallt Tiwmi, Aév. for the reefgoadente No. 1 god 2. $33: EM’ELE gem JosemE mg. AoARwAL om 0mm g 21.4-2009; 1 This appeal has bee}; di‘recied by The Oziemal lasurance compagy Limited. against the award dated 25—2-20G4 paseed by HIE} Additional Motor Accident Cloims Tribunal, Burg 1‘11 Claim oajse No. 83]99 (DB. Goswarm emd another —v— Basaat Kumar a316, another) . ‘ Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are. as uraderz— Uzldisputerlly, ”'18 claimeults respondents filed 5m application for compensatioo agamst death of their sol; Rajesh in all accident dated 93—99 when The deceased was traveEing 1'31 his own mizu'bus N0. MP. 24—c—258Q which was bemg drivenL by respondent 110. 3 and i11sured by the - ap‘peEaatg’ msuralice comyaey claiming compensation to the time of Rs. 8,18,00Qi— aiong with interest at the rate of 18% from me date of apph'caa'on. 11 The insurer i‘e. me appellaat,’insurax1ce cempaey hae denied its Liability to indemnify the owner j msuz‘ed on \ M . V \ ‘ i116 grnd that as ths d€caased was injured him$elf aLvd as riot a hird' party aim as such aay apphcation far comp€nsation ibr the dsath of £15C€asad hmseh’.‘ was Bot mainabk against The presant apeilazlt and risk of owger of tha vehic1€ hémwlf is not covargd under the policy issued. 2 ma para e e date of accidgnt an mersfo th€ appellant im$ura11ca 1§ally a Labic Jil ai erel a$1d awardsd Rs ,3 GOO; as csamz m favour of The alants also auamsi 6 a§polltl sujme compag h mterogt at +116 rate f 9% oe anmm from tho date-of apolication. Hones this, appsal. o r . hri Ahhfiok Sizz-ha, ad co } fo the aogéLaot bmi’is that todly tho n'sk of owao ls not coverod undgr ocy La extra m anal as the ow 0‘ bemv a third a, f t reienf of tutoly pohcy cover {he ms}; " owner Lnd Sece 147 e ot ecles Ac 1988 am} erefore, me ht o pay compeasation has been wrongly fas ed oax the eilallsnce compan, and the awald t L h: ap wntlma y a fa as ap13eLa] smce coumy ls concemed, deservecl to ; é ur j w nd s ‘ . Lea-d Tribunal on 'apprscia’tion of Evidence adduced by 2113 fs, cam to {116 cogclusien that as fl1e vehicle was hmured 011 th d m COJ 1a las am} m wavy 16 o“pF-nt m L3 an Lnla y aoaa Wzt s r nL m‘ca lje gm set aside. Fer this he placed Ieh'allce upon 'the judgmeats of um‘eme r Cot in case of Bhanra Fv- Ee Eia Asuraaee Co. ’ ee: was am. Rsported in (20048 sec 553 and oxiemaa sazaace Co. Le. —v- Jimma Saba QSmt.) ana oihers repozted (007) 9 SCC 263. , ey contra, Shri Tiwari upport th awald and submitted at th learned Tribuaal has passed reasoned award which Kesewes to b uheld. gi‘ e p ‘. E have ard learned counsel fr the parb‘es. 5 he o . The qestion for decisn m 1'31 this case is wheaier the ttory poo ssued h Secion 147 the Act aso covers the ris o JCie ". Seci’ioa 14 ofe otor Vehicls ct reads as urierr o I u io aking satu g} i udei t o l k of wner of the veh ? 7 7 fh M e A d ou w t aimé p 3 S s Aenwe ‘ nos r % s‘u arimit l pli ‘ v kma o €mAu ner *1r orrv 1+ 1a Qo he wnt gea Lo 01 er tlo o; m Me; Vhl t th amhy t s Es d in 2 4 F sed e th e 47 Reauirement ef p0!icias and limits 0f iiabilz’ty— In *his Chapter, a puiicy of iizsurance must be a pointy which; who is cm aathon'sed insurer; (a) is issued by a parsm; i iorder to camp£g wzth the reqwrement of wzcg iusw‘es the per$0u or classes of persons apecifi'ed y? the pelicy Io {he extem speczfz'ed in sub—sect’icn (2}- agamsa‘ aej habaiztg winch gray Le m Trad by him m iespect 0f the death of or b0&z2y gends 0r his authorized represenmtive “ameci' m the bemeie 97 aamage t9 mug prayer? hf a *hed punt caeseti by er ammg om vf éke use 9f me aehLrEe m a puehe p1 seat}; (2f a? EmdlEy mjmy i9 any {1%) agelest ge {b} 1 {i} ,. mJ‘m-y ta 5mg pergon) mclueimg owner 0f me ‘ passenger cf a public sewice vehicle caused by er enemy Gui of the use of the vehicle in a pubiic pmce: Provided that a poiic‘y shalE nor be require“— te cc er View a"! a” ,espee't 0f the deaih) arising Out sf 61.1152 in the coarse of his empleymerzt) 0f the emplcyee of a pe 0n med ed by rhe peiicy or in respect of badily injury sustained by sues/r, 1 an empzoyee emsmg . . out 0f amg érz 453% caurse of his employment other €3mn ab: gty aresmg wider my Workmen s Compeasatiora Act, 1923 (8 of .1 923), in respect of the death 0f, 0r bodily injurg to, any such emplayee-f ! {a} engaged in dn‘ying the vehicie, K OT (3??) if ii 1'5 a pubiic service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicze or in examining tickets 0:2 the vehicle, or (c) if it is c5 goads cam‘age, bemg carried irz the vehz’de} or ‘{z‘i} to oover any contractual liabiiz’ty. {2) Subject to the proviso to sub—section (H, a poéicy of insurance refen‘ed :0 in euc- seciion (I), Shall cover any iiabiiiiy incuwed in respect of any accideni, up i0 me foiiowing limits nameiy:— (a) save as provided in ciause {b}, the amourit of Ziabiiity incum‘ed; {b} in respect of damage to any property of a thin?! party, a iimit of rupees six thousand: Proyided that any pottcy of irzsuranoe issued with any timited liabiitty amt in force) immediately before the \oommencemerzt of this Act, shall continue to be eg‘ective for a period of J four months after such commencement or titl the date of exotry of such pottcy whichever is earlier, 3‘5 (3} A policy shall ba of no e;jFect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favodr of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the preschoed fem; and containing the prescribed particuZars of any conditions subject to which the policy is issued am? of any other prescrihed matters; and dgé‘erem forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in dWerent cases. (4) Where a cover note issued by the ‘ insurer under the-previsioms of this Chapter or the mies made thereuncler is notfoElowed by a‘ poiicy cf insurance withih the prescribeei time, the insurer shali, aéithin seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, nojitg the fact of the registerihg authority in whose records the vehicZe to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such ether authcrity as the State Goeemmeht may prescribe, (5,3 Notwithstaradihg anything echtairzect ih arty Zciw for the time being tzz force; cm insurer issuing a policy of tnsttranw tinder this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or ciasses of persorts specified in the policy in respect of ' any liahitity which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes ofpersons. " 8. A bare perusal of the above section would reveal that as far as statutory liabiflty is concerned, by statutory policy, the insurance company only insures the liabhity’alising out of the /'r / ,.. r‘ , ( I \ insemd and it does not €nsur€ LhC insured. It is also not in dispute tha’t such risk has not boon undertakan by insurance compasay by takmg extra premium 1'11 this regard. En case of Dhanraj (Sigma) the Supreme Court observed. 1'11 paras 8 amd 10 as under:— “8‘ Thus, an insurance policy covers the Iiabih‘iy incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods er his authorised representaiive) carried in the vehicle or damage $0 any property of a‘ihird party caused by or arising out of ihe use of ihe vehicie, Seciz'on’ 147 does r101 require an insurance ; V ' ' company 3'0 assume risk for death or bodily injury io ihe owner of ihe vehicle. ‘ F0. In mas case, it has not been shown that the poiioy covered any risk for injury to me owner himseif. We are unable to accept the contention moi the premium of Rs 4989 paid under me heading “own damage” is for covering 1iabi3ity towards personai injury Under ihe heading “Own damage”; the words “premium or: vehicie and non-eiectrical accessories” appear. Ii is thus dear ihai ihis premium is iowards damage 30 the vehicle and not for injury to the person of the owner: An owner of a vefu'ole can oniy ciaim provided a personal accident insurance has been iaken om. In ihis case there is no such insurance.” 9. i The Supreme Court 3'11 Jhuma Saha {Smt} (supra), observed m “13. The addiiional premium was not paid in respect of ihe eniire risk of deaih or bodily injury of the owner ofihe vehicie. if ihai be so; Seciion 147(b) of the Motor Vehicte Act which in no uncertain terms covers a risk of a third party onty would be attracted in the present case.” » lOi in View of the above facts and circumstances of the case and \ in Mew of the dicta of die Supreme Court in the above referred cases, learned Tribunal went wrong in fastening the liability upon the appeHailt/ issurancec‘ompany 311d the same finding deserves to be set aside. era 13 as under:- 5 11. g Thereforé, in Tim facts and circumstances of ths casc, I havc no ihesitation to hold that thc appeEant/ insurancc campajly ‘hcréh1 was not Liable to pay the amount of compensah’on to tbs clajl‘nants. \ 12. ‘ For the reasons aforcmcntioned, the impugned award cannot be ustm'ned. The same is set aside so far as liability of the app Halli is concerned. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 13. However there shall be no order as to costs. /’/ Sdl- ’/ N. K. Agafwa‘ Judge V, —