8., 1. t IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR c' M.A.NO. APPELLANT R.ESPONDENTS /2003 ^y gg • ROOP KUMAR AADWANI, S/0 SHRI C.L. AADWANI, PROPRITOR M/S. VIJAY AGENCY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION - OWNER OF METADOOR, RESIDENT OF MALANJKHAND, TAH. BAIHAR, DISTT. BALAGHAT (M.P..). (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE] VERSUS SMT DUKALABI WIDOW OF LATE SHR1 IDU KHAN, AGED ABOUT :32 YEARS, CASTE - MUSALMAN, OCCUPATION - LABOURER, RESIDENT OF KENDATOLA, PO BIRSA, P.S. BIRSA, TAH BAIHAR, DISTT. BALAGHAT (M.P..) (CLAIMANTj 2. (A) (B) SULTANA BEGUM, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, D/0. LATE SHRI IDU KHAN (CLAIMANT) RAJIYA BEGUM, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, D/0. LATE SHRI IDU KHAN. (CLAIMANTI .;(£) SAKIYA BEGUM, ABOUT6YEARS, . (CLAIMANT) AGED SL.NO, (A), (B) & ,(C). ARE MINORS THROUGH : THEIR NATURAL ' GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. DUKALABI, WIFE OF LATE SHRI IDU KHAN, SL.NO. (A), (B) & (C) ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KENDATOLA, P.S. BIRSA, TAH BAIHAR, DISTT. BALAGHAT (MP) } : ^I^**'^''"1"' Sffi 3. RAVI NAGESHWAR SON OF SHR; GENDLAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION-DRIVER, RESID.ENT OF KOKTPARA, CHARPELA, POST AND P.S. MALANJKHAND, TAH BAIHAR, DISTT. BALAGHAT (MP) (DRIVER) 4-; THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SHOPP1NG COMPLEX, MALANJKHAND, TAH BAIHAR, DISTT. BALAGHAT (MP) (INSURANCE) APPEALJJNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 j j HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUR M.A,No.638of2003 APPELLANT: Roop Kumar Aadwani -Versus- RESPONDENTS: Smt. Dukalabi and others Present ShriAnup Majumdar, counsel forthe appellant. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar IVIishra. J. ORAL ORDER (12-5-2011) 1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the owner ofthe Matador bearing registration No. M.P.22-B/5391. 2. T^e Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,39,500/- in favour of respondents No.1 and 2(A) to 2(C). 3. In the claim petition, it has been averred in paragraph-2 thereof that deceased Indu Khan along with 6 other persons were travelling in the offending vehicle after hiring it for carrying mangoes. The Claims Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company from satisfying liability on the ground that the offending vehicle being a goods vehicle, carrying of passengers was not allowed and as such, the owner and driver of the vehicle having committed violation of terms of policy, the Insurance Company is notliable to indemnify the award. 4., Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that premium of Rs.15/- was paid for carrying passengers, however, on reading of paragraph captioned as "Limitation as to use", it is revealed that the vehicle could only be used for carrying of goods within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act and the policy does not cover, amongst other things, for use of carrying passengers in the vehicle except employees (other than driver) ^, not exceeding 6 in numbers coming under the purview of Workmen .CompensationAct, 1923. n' •••••.•••^Sil-i^-•^- ^-^St Siaf ..r^asa^ -"-'^ y% j \^ Blarve 5. It is nobody's case that the deceased was an employee of the owner. Thus the deceased could not have traveled in the vehicle as a passenger. Payment of premium of Rs.15/- is only forcovering such passenger who is an employee and not for any other person who is • travelling in the vehicle but is not an employee. 6. This Court does not find any substance in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed. | g^ Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge .%,