^<. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M. A. ro No. ?€/Y /09 •;>o a o j ^ r ? .- - /^ ^ ^ ^ ^ f^, APPELLANT / RESPONDENT N0. 3 - ^.^ ....<s^ ^•:^y ^r;^*.. ^!^,--"' \y"" The oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Kuchari Chowk Madina Manjil Raipur. Through, The Orienral Insurance Co. Ltd Through Divisional Manager Parmanand Building Near Rajendra Park Chowk, Durg Versus RESPONDENTS / CLAIMANT k ^^ .p' ^ (l)Hansraj Singh Parihar aged about48years. j|& ^T^ ^^/^// ^o^j-\\ a/Y; ^ (2) Indrakali Singh Parihar W/o Hansraj Singh Parihar aged about 44 years. (?6^, ^c,' DM/r^^- c^^tu-^^ ^^->-, •^Wfi-/y)s^sy) ^a^-ei^ (P^^S- fC<<;^? (3)Anil Kumar Singh S/o Sakal ^ ' Deve Singh, Aged about 45 years. Sakin - Krishna Nagar WardNo.-51,Thana-Tikra Para Raipur, Zilla Raipur (C.G.) h ^ •<i^««M (4)Properiter M/s Dubey Travels ^ Resident of New Bus Srand, Pandhri, Raipur (C.G.) MISC. APPFAT TT/S 173 QF MOTOR VEHTCLE ACT 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (Q No. 704 of 2009 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Respondents Hansraj Singh Parihar & others AND M. A. No. 705 of 2009 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Respondents ' Smt. Deepali Satakar 85 others MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri N. K. Agarwal, JJ Ms Chitra Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant ~ Insurance Company, Shri Anshul R. Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4 inM.A.(C) No.704/2009. Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3, in M.A.(C) No. 705/2009. Shri Sudeep Johri, Advocate for the respondents No. 4 and 5 in M.A.(C) No. 705/2009. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 28th day ofOctober, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. Heard. These two appeals (M.A.No. 704 and 705 of 2009) are being disposed of by this common order as both the appeals arise from the one and the same incident. The facts, in brief, are that on 6.11.2007 at about 3.00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus of Dubey Travels, bearing registration No. .C.G. 04/E-0582 the said bus was fallen in ,,^ssa •':f- ^- 1 ? <^€ •t \ the valley. As a result of the accident Rajesh Parihar (deceased in M.A.(C) No. 704/2009) and Dilip Satarkar (deceased in M.A.(C) No. 705/2009) died. The offence was registered under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in the Police Station - Keshkal at Crime No. 182/2007 against the non-applicant No.l (Anil Kumar Singh). The non-applicant No.2 was owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was insured with the non-applicant No.3 The legal heirs (Hanshraj Singh Parihar and Indrakali Singh Parihar) ofdeceased Rajesh Parihar filed the Claim Case No. 29/2009 and the legal heirs (Smt. Dipali Satarkar, Dushyant Satarkar and Devashish Satarkar) of deceased Dilip Satarkar filed the Claim Case No. 25/2008 for award of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Both the claim cases have been decided by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide separate awards dated 25.2.2009 granting total compensation of Rs. 3,74,500/- and 19,26,752/- to the claimants, respectively. The respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants in M.A. (C) No. 705/2009 have filed the cross-objection, dated 17.8.2010 for enhancement ofamount of compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/Insurance Company raised objection that the vehicle was overloaded and later on the passengers were shown within the prescribed seating limit. In this regard she rely on a decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anjana Shyam and others1. In para 18 of the judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : <(18. In this situation, the insurance taken out for the number of permitted passengers can alone determine the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of those passengers. In terms of (2007) 7 SCC 445 .^ Sectionl49 of the Act, the duty of the insurer is only to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of the third-party risk. Obviously, this is to the extent the third- party risk is coverable and is covered. Section 149 of the Act speaks of judgment or award being obtained against any person insured by the policy and the liability of the insurer to pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder subject to any claim the insurer may have against the owner of the vehicle. Section 149 could not be.understood as compelling an Insurance Company to make payment of amounts covered by decrees not only in respect of the number of persons covered by the policy itself but even in respect of those who are not covered by the policy and who have been loaded into the vehicle against the terms of the permit and against the terms of the conditions of registration of the vehicle and in terms of violation of a statute.?? Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for the duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks. It does not provide any ground of overloading, as has been taken by the insurer. In the instant case there is no question of payment of compensation to the passengers exceeding the limit and therefore this question cannot have arisen before the Tribunal and is not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case. It is also not established that the vehicle i.e. bus was overloaded. Further, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has contended that the vehicle was being driven without permit but we have perused the lower Court record as well as the evidence. The vehicle was plying between Raipur to Beladeela. The permit was issued by the Regional Transport Authority on 2.11.2007 and was valid up to 2.2.2008. The tax was also paid from 1.11.2007 to 30.11.2007 and the witnesses to this effect were also examined. The Tribunal, thus, has rightly held that the permit was valid. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that there were special passengers but that does not show that the vehicle was being driven outside the State or beyond the rout allowed to it. In the statement also 'it has come that the vehicle was coming from Beladeela to Raipur when the accident had taken place. No contraiy evidence has been produced by the Insurance Company or any of the non-applicants. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no ground to interfere in the findings given by the Tribunal. 9, With regard to the cross-objection, the monthly income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 21,616/- on the basis of salary after deducting the house rent allowance, conveyance allowance, washing allowance and station allowance, the monthly income. For such a monthly income-tax would be leviable but that amount has not been deducted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the conclusion comes to the same which has been assessed by the Tribunal. Therefore, there would be no change in the amount awarded by the claims Tribunal. 10, In view of the above, both the appeals as well as the cross-objections are dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Thakur