.1 ' \i- IN THE HON^BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR M.A.tC) N0. -^ ct ^\ OF 2007 5pj APPELLANT/ i. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. RESP.N0.3 . , Limited. ^^'•••^.. Divisional Office-I, Post Box-49, \^^v,^/v-u/"'.'..- Medical College Road, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur-492901 (CG). ,''^/Y ^^^-""" ^ ,.r^-" ^•"fi"" RESPONDENTS APPLICANT VERSUS [: Selan allies Shailendra Yadav ^ S/o Dooj Ram Yadav, Aged 37 years, Resident of Village/ PosVTehsil: Kurd, Dist: Dhamtari (CG). RESPONDENT N0.2 j^Panchrams/o.Sonuram Kanwar, Resident of Thhothali, Tehsil Dist: Dhamtari. RESPONDENT N0.1 c Resident of Thhothali, Tehsil: Kurd, < RESPONDENT N0.3^M/s. Prakash Enterprises, Proprietor 'RESPONDENT N0.2 ^^Kailash Shukla, Kurd, Dist:Dhamtari. ^: MISC APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988. _._.2.___ ,^;'x—?;^ < HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fClNo.5440F2007 Aopellanff Reso. No.3 Respondents Applicant Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limlted, Raipur (CG) Selan allies Shailendra Yadav and others And MA.(ClNo.5450F2007 Apoellant/ Resoondent No.3 Respondente Appellant V8 The Oriental tnsurance Company LimUed, Raipur (CG) Naresh Yadav and ottiers POSTFORORDERON I? AUGUST.2011 . Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ;\ ^,;^^S.S^!^^ ./^y\ f£v ...„. 1 ll:—:":i^1 HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^a^ M.A.fClhto.5440F2007 Appellantf Reso. No.3 Resoondents Applicant Appellanff Resoondent No.3 Resoondents Aooetlant Vs The Oriental Insurance ComiMiny Limited. Raipur (CG) Seton allies Shaitendra Yadav and othecs MA.(ClNo.5460F2007 Vs The Oriental tnsurance Company Limited. Raipur(CG) Naresh Yadav and others Present: Mr. SudhirAfiirawal. counsel forthe appellant/jnsurance company. Mr. M.T. Haicter, counsel for respond^it No.2, Mr. P.P. Sahu, counsel for respondent No.3. QRDER (Passedon I? Ai^|ust»2011) * » G.Minhaiuddin.J 1. Since both these appeate arise out of the same acddent, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These appeals have been filed by the appellanyinsurance company under Section 173 of the R4otor Vehtoles Act, 1988 against the award dated 29th January, 2007 passed by 14th Addittonal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (in short "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 70/06 and 127/06 respectively, fastening liabiltty on the appellant/insurance company to pay the amount of compensation, jointly and severally, along with the driver and owner of the vehtete. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.1.2006 injured Selan Yadav, Naresh Yadav along with other labours had gone in the fruck bearing registration No.CG 05/JB 0105 from VUIage : Kurud to Kodobatar and when they were retuming, driver of thesaid truck i.e. respondent(No.2 Panchram drove the vehide in a rash and negligent manner, on account ofwhich it turned turtle, resutting in grievous injuries to Selan Yadav and Naresh Yadav. The said vehicte was owned by respondent No.3 and insured with the appellanVinsurance company at the relevant time. Report of the .^\' accident was immediately todged in Police Station : Gartyaband. On this basis, applteations under Sectton 166 ofthe Motor Vehteles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") were flted by injured Setan Yadav and Naresh Yadav before the Tribunat, who after affording opportunity of hearing and of acklucing evidence to the parties, passed the impugned award, whereby a sum of Rs.81,30(y- has been granted as compensation in favour of Selan Yadav and Rs.84,300/- in favour of Naresh Yadav, fastenlng the Uabiltty upon the appellanMnsurance company, jointly and severally, atong wtth respondents No. 2 & 3. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the LCR asalsothe impugned award. 5. Contention of teamed counsel for the appellant4nsurance company is that the driver of the truck was not possessing a vatid and effective driving licence on the date of accident In addition to this, he further contended that the claimant4njured Setan Yadav, Naresh Yadav and others were not traveling in the truck as labours, but as gratuitous passengers, which is apparent from perusal of the FIR todged immediately after the accktent at Pdice Startion : Gariyaband. Therefore, the appeltant/insurance company is not Uable to pay compensation because there has been breach of terms and conditions ofthe insurance poltey. 6. (n support of his contention, teamed counsel for the appellant/insurance company has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mattere of Afew Indlan Asswwice Co. Ltrf. Vs. Vedfcwriir and ottiws, reported in 2007AIRSCW1S08. 7. From perusal of the impugned award, it is clear that regareting breach of conditions of insurance policy, Issue No.3/4 has been framed, which was answered in the negative, against the appellant/insurance company. \ 8. In the instant ease, the claimant/jnjured Setan Yadav and Naresh Yadav and the wi^iesses examined on their behatf. have ^ated thaft the claimants were not traveling as a gratuttous passenger but as a labour in the said truck, whjle according to the appellant/insurance ^•'. )' 1 company, about 35-40 persons had hired the said truck for going to Kodobatar from Kurud to attend chhattl ceremony and when after attending the ceremony, they were returning that the accktent occurred. For deciding this, the F1R lodged at Polfoe Station : Gariyaband immediately after the accktent is an important ctocument and certified photocopy of the same has been flled by claimants/injured Selan Yadav and Naresh Yadav as Ex.P/1 & P/4, respectively before the Tribunal. From perusal of the same. it is ctear beyond doubt that the said trucK was hired for going to ^iNage : Kodobatar for attending c/?/»afff ceremony and about 35-40 persons had gone to attend the ceremony and when they were returning back from ^llage: Kodobatar that the vehicte tumed turtle on acGount of rash and negligent driving of driver of the truck, resufting in grievous injuries to the claimants and oithers. As such,ft is ctear that the clajmants4njured, at the time of accklent, were not traveting in the said truck as a labour but as a gratuitous passenger. 9. Thus, in view of this fact and the law lakl down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mattere of New India Assurance Co.Ud. Vs. Vedwatt and others (supra); New India Asswance Company UxL Vs. Asha Ranl and OOws, 2002 AIR SCW 5259; Oriwrtal Inswwiee Co. Ud. Vs. Dwfireckly Komfa Rwfdy and othws, 2003 AIR SCW 513: Hatlonal Insursmee Co. Ltd. Vs. W Ksmiar and othws, 2003 AIR SCW 4120; Natkmal Inswwiw Go. Ud. Vs. Baljlt Kaur and othefs, 2004 AIR SCW 212; and N^onal Insui'anee Co. Ltd. Vs. Bommlthl Subbaymimm and othws, 2002 AIR SCW 52S9, the appellant/insurance company cannot be hejd liable to pay compensation to the claimants/injured, and in fact, the owner and the driver of the vehicte only are jointly and severally liable. 10. In the result, both the appeate are allowed and the impugned awarcl dated 29th January, 2007 passed by the 14th Additionat Motor Accident Clafms Tr^unal, Raipur (CG) in Claim Cases No.70/06 and 127/06, so far as it relates to fastening of Uabjtfty upon the appeUant/insurance vcompany, are set aside. The appe>llant/insurance company is exonerated from tts liafajtity to satisfy the award. The owner and the driver of the vehicte shaU be I" \i v ,-J •I ^ jointty andseverally liable to pay the amount of compensation to ttie claimants/injured Setan Yadav and Naresh Yadav. The amount, if any, deposited by the appeUant/insurance company, vvhich has not been disbursed to the claimants, shall be refunded to it and if the amount has already been disbursed, then the appellant/jnsurance company shall be entitted to recover the same from the owner of the vehicje. No order as to costs. Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge is ^