^ ^ t? A h IH THE HIGII CQURT OP CHHATTISQARH AT BILASFUR Appeal Ho, APPELLANT Defendaiit No.4 .ML ^' RESPONDENT Cla'itn.aiitMo.l RE8PQWDEHT CleiaiaTit No,2 Claiin-ant No,3 ^ ^^ ^!^^' <^--" _/2005 ^ The New Iiidia A%Buraiice Compsjiy Ltcl^ thi'ou^i ite Brauch Maiiager, Bilaspur (C.G.), -Ver^u^ - Sliri Chotira.m^ 43 year^, S/ o Sliri Sliivcharaii Salra, Smt. Chandrika Bai, 40 years, W/o 8hri Chotffam ^y / Sliii Sonu, 15 yews, S/o Sliri Saliu, Claimaiit No.3 stiice mitior, ftirough Guarclian-fatlier Chotu'am Sahu RESPONDEWT Defeudant No. 1 RESPONDENT Defendant No. 2 RESPONDENT Defendatit No. .3 Qf o Sl-iri Sliiv&harmi Saliu, /R/o Khamhi, P.S. &Tahsil- Lormi, District - Bilaspxir (C.G.) ^. Parmeshwer, 41 yews, S/ o Shri Swaratli Singh Thabur, Caste- Sataami, Occupation- Driver, Sarvainangla BiiSi Serrice^ C,G- 10-ZA/ 0508, R/o Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) -Driver- ^ Sliri Kaleshwer, 35 yeara, . S/ o 8hri Ra-mratoii Dubey, Occupatiou- Condzictor, R/ o Locll-dpara, Sarkaiida, (C.G.). -CLmductor- \^ 6. Sliri Prem Prakash Laafli, 40 years, S/ o Shri Hari Shmikar Laatli, l R/o Bua Staiid, BUaapur (C.G.) -Owner- v^ ^ ^' iys ow t ^r ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ M.A. No. 1095/2005 Appellant Defendant No.4 Respondents Claimant No.1 Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Bilaspur (CG) Shri Chotiram and others Present: Mr. Prashant Jaiswal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the appellanVinsurance company. Mr. Avinash Mishra, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6. ORDER (Oral) (19th October, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J 01) This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/insurance company against the award of th6 II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (in short "the Tribunal") dated 19.11.2004 passed in Claim Case No.61/04 whereby liability has been fastened upon the appellant/insurance company, jointly and severally, along with the driver, conductor and owner. 02) Brief facts of the case, as per averments made in the claim petition, are that on 12.6.2003 while Mahesh Sahu was trying to bring down the bicycle of one of the passengers from the roof of the bus bearing registration No. CG 10-ZA/0508, at that juncture, idh the signal being given by conductor of the said bus i.e. respondent No.5, driver of the bus i.e. respondent No.4 negligently started the bus. As a result, the bicycle got touched with the high tension electricity wire and due to electric shock, Mahesh Sahu, fell down from the roof of the bus headlong on the road, resulting in grievous injuries and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries while being taking to hospital on the way. // % ^ .,,..^Tii^:; //'"^ ^ '%. ^^' '%^^ y/ Cfy^v- 03) At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 26 years, working as Khalasi (Cleaner) in Servamangala Bus Service and was getting Rs.150/- per day and Rs.40/- per day extra from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the claimants, who are parents and younger brother of the deceased, being his legal heirs filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") for a total compensation of Rs.16,50,000/- under various heads against the death of Mahesh Sahu. 04) 05) However, learned Tribunal, after close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, 'awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,26,500/- in favour of the claimants, fastening the liability jointly and severally upon the appellant/insurance company and driver, conductor and owner ofthe vehicle in question. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. 06) We have perused the details of the insurance policy. It was a Passenger Carrying Commercial Vehicle Policy B Package i.e. comprehensive policy. In that policy, extra premium was taken for 50 passengers, compulsory PA to owner and driver up to Rs. 2 lac and WC employee to the extent of two. 07) Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has submitted that WC employee to the extent of 2 denotes only driver and conductor and no other person. The deceased was a helperand therefore, this policy would not cover the deceased. 08) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 6 & 7, Mr. Abhishek Sinha, has drawn attention of this Court towards provisd to Section 147(1 )(b) of the Act, 1988. Section 147(1) reads as under: "147. Requirements of policaes and limits of liability. - (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which - ^^nN^ •\ •^\ ^^ ^ .^••\...^^ - - /ys:k ^ ("^ 1 •^ss^ s ^ ^ 09) (a) is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer; and (b) insyres the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) - (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place" Further, a proviso has been given therein, according to which the policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment, other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee engaged in driving the vehicle or if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle. or in examining the tickets on the vehicle or if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or to coverany contractual liability. Thus, from the above, it is clear that a policy shall be required to cover the liability of the driver and the conductor of the vehicle. Therefore, the driver and conducfor are covered under the compulsory policy. Besides this, in clause (2) to this proviso, it has been provided that a policy shall not be required to cover any contractual liability. In the instant case, the contractual liability to the extent mentioned above has been covered i.e. WC employee to the extent of 2. Therefore, it cannot be said that these employees would be driver and conductor as the driver and conductor are covered under the compulsory policy and WC employee •'3;S3E-2:S'^^?S:^%^:^ ;^'.:-. .:...'.'>\\ ,/ ^ are only under the contractual liability. As such, the deceased, who was a helper would come under the contractual liability and therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of law. 10) In view of above, this appeal has no force, the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. 11) Since permission under Section 170 of the Act, 1988 has not been granted, it is not open for the appellant/insurance company to raise the question of quantum and on that part, the appeal is not be maintainable. ^-—- Sd/- | LM. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge