IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Cl N0. ^S ~? / 2011 ^. , ^ ^PPELLANT INSURER/RESPONDENT N0. 3 y^CICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., through it's Legal Manager, ICICI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Lal Ganga Shopping Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS ^^'•"^< ^^^-^ ^ ^^^v\' ^ h^'o/^^^i A^o, \ ^ tef>o^£A;7 ^b.2- VERSUS Smt. Rukhmani Bai, wife of Late Shri Thakur Ram, aged about 40 years ^.2. Harnarayan, son of Late Shri Thakur Ram, aged about 25 years J3. Bodh Prak^fi Verma, son of Shri Harnarayan ^Verma, aged about 4 years [. Neha Verma, daughter of Shri Harnarayan Verma, aged about 7 years Respondent No. 3 & 4 being minors are represented through their father Shri Harnarayan 5. Sohadra Verma, wife of Late Shri Latel Ram Verma, since dead All the above residents of Village Tekari, Mandar, Post Office Mandar Colony; District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Hemant Sonwani, son of Shri ^ Dhanau Sonwani, aged about 30 years, resident of Rawan Bhata, Mandirhasod, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh J. Goverdhan Lal Sen, son of Shri ^ Ramlal Sen, resident of Village Mandirsahod, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh M^MQRANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT1988 ^^. ^^^ ^'CY HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR APPELLANTS: RESPONDBNTS: DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDU8I fis Hoaa'fele G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M.AtCt No. 357/2011 , ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Snit, Ukhniaai Bai aad ofhers MISC. APPBAL UNDER 8BCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.1988 Appearaiice: Mr. Ainnto Das, counsel for fhe appeUaat. Mr. C. R. Sahu, counsel for respondents 1 to 4, Mr, M, K. Bhadxiri, counsel for respondents 5 to 7. Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J. ORAL ORDER (08.08.2011) 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insxiraace Coinpaay agamst fhe mipugned award dated 24.11,2010 passed by fhe VII Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G) m Claim Case No.54/2009 so far as itrelates to fasteniag UabiUty to pay corapensation upon fhe Insuraiice Couipaay. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of the claimants are . fbiat on 18.05.2009 deceased Thakur Ram was goiag to his duty by his Motorcycle bearing Regn.No.C.G.04-CV/0337. On fhe way, at about 10.00 a.m,, one Tractor beariag Regn.No,04- ,' DV/1359 & TroUey No.C.G.04-DV/1360 which was being driven by respondent no,6/HemaHt Sonwani ia a rash aad 1 Km ^^sy negUgent maaner dashed fhe motorcycle from behiad, as a result ofwhich, Thakur Ram died on fhe spot. At the tirae of accident, fhe deceased was aged about 50 years. He was workuig as Upper Division Teacher ia Govt, School and was drawiag a monfhly salaiy of Rs, 18,000/- The appellants beiag dependents/ legal representatives have filed claun petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for the award oftotal compensation ofRs.51,25,000/- on various heads. 3. The learaed Claicas Tribunal has held fbat the Tractor Trolley was iavolved ia fhe accident ia which deceased died on fhe sppt; fhere was no breach of poMcy conditions aiid fhe clauiiaats are entitled to receive a tqtal compensation of ^;" Rs, 18,71,168/ - from. fhe non-appUcaats joinfly aad severaUy, 4. We have heard leamed counsel for fh.e partles aad have also gone through the records of fhe Tribiinal. On perusal of fhe insurance poUcy, we have found fhat fhat the iasuraace policy was made efifective fix?m 18.05.2009 at 18.55 hours to 17.05,2010 mid night. Copy of the iasurance poUcy jSled by the owner shows fhat fhere is inaaipulation ia. fhe begioiiiag tiine of fhe poUcy fhat is digit 'l' one has been erased froui 18.55 and it appears fhat it is 8.55 as fhe accident had taken place prior to 18.55 hours aad fherefore, wifh aa mtention to f wrongfiilly gaia, a nianipulatton has been done aod digit <1"has ,been erased jfroin 18.55 hours. Further fhe Registration Certificate of fhe vehicle shows ttiat it was a Tractor which was registered for agricultural purpose aad tax was exempted. The iasuraiice poUcy is always subject to conditions offhe Registration Certificate. Therefore, fhe owner of fhe Tractor sbould have used fhe Tractor only for ^•es"v^^ : -c5^ I agricultural purposes unless fhe tax was paid for aay ofher purpose fhan agricxiltural purposes, but the Tractor was cariying fhe construction material {Gitt^. Therefore, it is made out fhe vehicle was not beuig used for agricultiiral purpose. 5. In view of fhe above, we are of the opmiori that fhe insuraace policy was not effective at fhe time of accident aad the Tractor was not beiag used for agricultural purposes for which the yegistration of the Tractor was done by fhe Registenng Aufhority. Therefore, fhe iasiirance conipany has wrongly been held Uable to pay coiapensation, 6. Hence, we aUow fhis appeal aad exonerate fhe insurance coiapaay froia fhe Uabitity to pay coinpensation to fhe claimaats. However it wUl be open to taie claimaats to realize the corapensation ainount froni tifcie owner of fhe vehicle. 7. The aniount deposited by fhe Insuraace Coiiipaay shall be refianded aad tf fhe amount has sdready disbursed to the claunaats, tiLen fhe Insuraiice Coiapaay niay realize fhe sanie froin fhe owner. 8. In fhe result, the appeal is allowed, No order as to cost(s). Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao L