•Si IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILA^PUR M.A.fClNo. LD~?3 of 2011 S@3X»tl APPELLANT fOwner) ^}^^^ ^^^ '^^" RESPONDENTS fClaimant) flnsurer) :l. Chamar Singh Son of Manglu Chouhan, aged about 47 yeas, Caste Ganda, R/o. Village Nunpani, P.S. Sarangarh, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), VERSUS Surit Ram Son of Budlu Sahu, aged about 48 years, Bhanumati, Wife of Suritram Sahu, aged about 45 years, Both Caste Teli, Occupation agriculturist and Labourer, R/o. Village Nunpani, P.S. Sarangarh, Tahsll Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), I.C.I.C.I, Lombard General Insuracne Company Limited, Raipur (C.G.) - 668001 MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THEMOTQR VEHXCl.,£ACT 19^Si-ISSy^-EMHANCE '^~- »u— ^ HIGHCOUR-RORGHHATTlSGARHATBILASPUR APPELLANT Owner RESPONDENTS Claimant IVI.A.CNo. 1079_of2011 ChamarSingh VERSUS SuritRam & others (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 QFTHE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (SB: Hoh'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.) Present : Shri Harsh Mahant, Advocate fortheappellant. ORALORDER (Passedon04.11.2011) 1. This isowners'appeal against the award dated 20.06.2011, passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 01/09. 2. As against compensation of Rs. 59,13,500/- claimed by elaimants/respondentNo. 1 & 2 by filing application before the Tribunal UnderSection 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for shori: 'MVAct') forthe death ofGajanand @ Golu Sahu in the motor accident on 05.12.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum. 3. The Tribunal, on a closescrutiny of theevidence led,held: the accident had occurred dye to rash and negligent driving by driver of Tractor bearing registratio.n No. CG-13-D-3264; f Gajanand died on account of injuries sustained in the said accident; respondent No. 3/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. successfully proved the violation of policy conditions .^ .-/, 7. 8. andnot liable for paymentofcompensation; assessed and awarded aforesaid amount of compensation in favour of claimants holding the appellant liable forits payment. Shri Harsh Mahant, learned counsel appearing for the appellant wouldsubmit the vehicle being insured, the Tribunal has erred in fastening liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/owner. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the order impugnfed. Undisputedly, the deceased was sitting in the Tractor as gratuitoys passenger and the policy issued covers the risk of third party, paid driver and PA coverage to the extent of 2 Lakhs for owner-cum-driver and the respondent/insurance company has not undertaken risk of any passenger sitting in the Tractor as gratuitous passenger by eritering intospecial contract with the owner of vehicle by charging extra premium therefor. In viewofabove, the Tribunal has not committedany illegality in fastening liability upon the appellant/owner to pay compensation to the daimants and in exonerating the respondent No. 3/ICICI General Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. from its liability to paycompensation. No other points have been jaised by the counsel for the appellant. ^•' ::'. . . . .' .' :^': •• : / •.: •!! ! For the reaspns mentioned hereinabove, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ^^ ^' :'-:..( ^