aBieBBiiBaiNiBsiMatatiaiB NINl •B- SSSi& w HiGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT B1LASPUR Singfe Bench: Hon'ble Shri Di'ip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Misc, AppeaKC.lNo. 1062/2007 APPELLANT: The New India Assurance Compafiy RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT 1. Owneccyni Driver 2. Limited, through - Divisional Manag^, The New india Assurance Compagy Limited.. Bilaspur, 2Pd Floor, Racjia Trade Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Plaz^, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus . Samudiva Bai' W/o Shri BudhSri Satnami, aged about 50 years, F^o Viliage - Luk, P.0. - Sa'naspur, Ta'nsj Saja, P.S. Dhamdha, District Dtgrg (Chha'ttisgarh) Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Piiu Ram, ag||d about 32 years, R/o Viiiage Sonesar|r, Tahsii snd Poiice Station Dhamdlia, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Misc. Appeai Under Section 173 oF Motor Vehicies Act_1^8 APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS CLAiMANT Owner cum Driver EVi.A.fC.lNo. 1078/2007 The New India Assurance Comp^ny Limited, through - Divis'onal Manager, The New india Assurance Comp|[ny Limited, Bilaspur, 2 Floor, Ra||ia Trade Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Plaia, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Makhan S/o Sakharam Satnami, afied about 30 years, resident of Villag<| Luk, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsil - S|ja, P.S. Dhamdha, District . Q|irg (Chhattisgarh) 2. Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Pilu Ram, a&ed abou-t 32 years, R/o Viltage Sonesa|('ar, Tahsil and Police Station Dhamclha, Distnc; Durg (Chhaitisgarh) Di Misc. Appeai Under Section 173 ot Motor Vehicies Act,1S88 ,^;S^,:i^';, SiSK- SBS.. • ^^; 2- asa®1 SSS'i M8• Misc. Appea! (C! No. 1079/2007 RESPONDENTS CLAiMANT Ownercum Driver ' 1. 2. The New India Assurance Companyf Limited, through - Divisional Manager,| The New india Assurance Companj Limited, Bilaspur, 2 Floor, Ram; Trsde Cenfre, Opposite - Rajeev Plazaj Bus Stana, Biiaspur (C.G.) Versus Ghanshyam, S/o Goverdhan Satnami| aged about 30 yesrs, R/o Village - Lul^ P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsil - Saja, P.^ Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Pilu Ram, age|l about 32 years, R/o Village Sonesarsi^ Tahsi! and Police Station Dhamdhi District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Misc. Appeai Under Section 173 pf Motor Vehides AcU 388 APPELLANT: ¥^ RESPONDENTS CLAiiViANT Owner cym Driver Btsc,ApBeai,(C.) N0,1077/2007 The New india Assurance Compai|Sy Limited, through - Divisiona! Manag^r, The i''ie\/ India Assurance Compafiy Limited, Biiaspur, 2"° FSoor, Raniia Traae Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Piazfa, Bus Stand, Biiaspur (C.G.) j' Versus 1. Dharmendra, S/o Gautariha Satnarjhi, aged about 22 years, R/o Viliage - Lijik, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsil - Saja, PfS. Dhamdha, District Durg (ChhattisgarhS < 2. Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Piiu Ram, acjed about 32 years, R/o Viilage Sonesaifer, Tahsi! and Police Station Dhamd^a, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Misc. AppeaS Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988J Misc. Appeai (C.) No. 1076/2007 APPELLANT: The New India Assurance Comp^iny Lim'ted, through - Divisional Manarfer, T'ne Nevv india Assurance Corrip|iny Limitsd, Bilaspur, 2"fl Floor, Rabia Trscie Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Plafea, BusStand,Bilaspur(C.G.) .— '^ Btt S&KE. WsS' :. ai@'. ^^li'":-":' RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT Owner cum Driver Versys Ratnu, S/o Dhnau Satnami, aged abou( 60 years, R/o Village - Luk, P.0. -f Sahaspur, Tahsii - Saja, P.S) Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Kamta Prasad' S/o Shri Pilu Ram, aged|, about 32 years, R/o Village Sonesarar; Tahsil and Police Siation Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Niisc. Appea! Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Misc. ApDeaiiC) No. 1075/2007 APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT Owner cum Driver The New India Assurahce Company Limited, through - Divisional Manager, The New india Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Surujs Bai, VV/o Shri Ratrju, aged about 47 years, R/o Village - Luk, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsil - i Saja, P.S. Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2. Kamta Prasad S/o S'nri Pilu Ram, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Sonesarar, Tahsil and Poiice Station Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Misc. Appeal Under Section 173 of rv'iotor Vehicies Act,1988 Misc,.Apf ai.(O^No,1074/2007 APPELLANT: ¥- The New tndia Assuranee Company Limited, through - Divisional Manager, The Ne\v india Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2 Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT 1 1. Smt. Surujs Bai, Wd/o Shri Balwant Satnami, aged about50!years,R/o Village - Luk, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsil - Saja, P.S. Dhamdha, Djstrict Durg (Chhattisgarh) s ^-"s '??^^ tte^as*)^.-..-.^^. ^^x ^s-^. Lf %^ ^^.:- r: ^§i s-'s'.". RI';1 R IS ^^ •SSff^ SK Ownercum Driver 2. Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Pilu Ram, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Sonesarar, Tahsii and Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Misc. Appeai UnderSection 173 ofMotorVehicles Act. 1988 W.P. (C.j No. S654/2007 PETIT10NER RESPQNDENTS CLAIMANT Owner_cum Driver The New tndia Assurance Company Limited, through - Divisjonaf Manager, The' Nev/ india Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Biiaspur (C.G.) Versus Banthu, S/o Shri Pusau Satnami, aged about 60 years, R/o Village - Luk, P.0. Sahaspur, Tahsil - Saja, P.S. Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Piiu Ram,aged about 32 years, R/o Vjllage Sonesarar, Tahsii and Poiice Station Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhatitisgarh) ^- S8B s» »8K S§B» ysK Writ Petition Under Articie 227 of the Constitution of india W.P. (C.) No. 5665/2007 PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT Owner cum Driver The New India Assurance Companyi Limited, through - Divisional; Manager, ' The New india Assurance ^Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2nd Fioor, Rama Trade CenEre, Opposite - Raj'eev Piaza, BusStand, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Goverdhan Satnami, S/o Shri Bhagbali Satnami, aged about 50 years, R/o Village - Luk, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsil - Saja, P.S. Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhatti'syarh) Kamia Prassd S/o Shri Piiu Ram, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Sonesarar, Tahsii and Poiice Station Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) -^ef'f: Si^'S; Writ Petition Under ArticEe 227 of the Constitution of Enc'a W.P. (C.) No. 5656/2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT Owner^um Driver The New india Assurance Company Limited, through - Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2 Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite -:Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Goverdhan, S/o Shri Hariram Satnami, aged about 50 years, R/o|Village ~ Luk, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsil|—Saja, P.S. Dhamdha, District Durg (Ghhattisgarh) Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Piiu Ram, aged about 32 years, R/o ViHage Sonesarar, Tahsil and Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarli) SiSJ ^^^ 8S8E: Bisg'' Esee. Writ Petition UnderArtideI27_of_the^onstitytiojiofJndia W.P. (C.l No. 5653/2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT OwneLcym Driver The New India Assurance Company Limited, through - Divisional Manager, The Nev^ india Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2nd ^FIoor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite -| Rajeev Pfaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Chinta Ram, S/o Shri Dulaku Satnami;, aged about 50 years,|R/<^ Village—Luk, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsil - Saja, P.S. Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Piiu Ram, aged about 32 years, R/o Viliage Sonesarar, Tahsil and Poiice Station Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Writ Petition Under Article227_of_{he_Constitytion of India ^'fWr.,'-^ B BK^ ss- v& VSk wS^'^ft'.'- SStei IKSffi'1 ^^>-" ^^y'^s, W.P. (C.) No. 5660/2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT Qwnercum Driver The New India Assurance Compan\|( Limited, through - Divisional Manager], The New India Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2ntf Floor, Ram^ Trade Centre, Oppositel- Rajeev Plazal Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.); Versys Santu, S/o Shri Budhari Satnami, agef about 35 years, R/Q Village - Luk, P.C| Sahaspur, Tahsil \ - Saja, P.^ Dhamdha, District Durgi(Chhattisgarh) Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Pilu Ram, age^l about 32 years, R/o Village Sonesaraiji, Tahsil and Police Station Dhamdhsl, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Writ Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of india W,P,(C.) N0.5661/2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT Ownercym Driver The New india Assurance Companii Limited, through - Divisional Manage^' The New India Assurance Compan^ Limited, Bilaspur, 2 Floor, Ramfei Trade Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Plaz^i, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Thanu Ram, S/o 'Shri Mahang|u Satnam,', aged about; 35 years, Wp Vi!lage - Luk, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsil; Saja, P.S. Dhamdh^, District Dur|j (Chhattisgarh) 1 } Kamta Prasad S/o Shrj Pilu Ram, age]d about 32 years, R/o Vjllage Sonesaraj Tahsil and Police Station Dhamdh^, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ». Writ Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of india Present Shri Saurabh Sharma, counse! for the appeliant/petitioner. Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsei for respondent No.1. Shri Uttam Pandey, counse! for respondent No.:2.. , v ^S^ssssssasssv. Ife'. EK^ Ss.' ssB SSS'K a? ^^ciiS 1 vs Th ORALORDER , (Passed on 16th November, 2007) Heard on admission. 2. Byithis common order Misc. Appeal (C) ,Nos. 1062/20Q7, 1078/2007, 1079/2007, 1077/2007, 1076/2007, 1075/2007, 1074/2Q|7 and W.P.(C) Nos. 5654/2007, 5655/2007, 5656/2007, 5659/20CJ.7, 5660/2007 and 5661/2007 filed by the insurance company are bei(ig disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of the parties.| 3. The fotlowing chart woula' give the a'etails of compensatipn awarded by the MACT againstthe appeliant/insurance company: ¥- 4. The only point for consideration in all the afores&d Miscelianeous Appeais and Writ Petitions is. as to whether the MAlpT ought to have exonerated the appe'lant/lnsurance Company from 1]he liability to.pay compensation due to a fundamental breach of policy. 5. Brief facts are that on 29.07.2005, the claimants.in ail <he aforesaid Miscellaneous Appeals and Writ Petitions were traveling|in Metador No. CG 04 G/8946, a goods vehicie owned by responde|pt No. 2 and insured by the appelSant'petitioner insurance Company. 7|he. claimantssustained injuries 'due to the matador turning turtie asl result of rash and negiigent driving of the respondent' No. 2/owner. 6. The MACT held that the accident was caused due to rash ahd negligent|drivjng by respondent No. 2/owner. It fastened the liabiiil^to Sr. No. Misc, Appeal (C.) No./ , Claim Case No. Writ Petition (C.) No. Compensation awarded 01. M.A.(C)No.l062/2007 ^7/2006 TEs-18,000/— 02. 1078/2007 I 33/2006 Rs. 35,000,- 03. 1079/2007 i 26/2006 Rs. 23.000/- 04. 1077/2007 132/2006 i| Rs. 10,000/- 05. " 1076/2007 ] 29/2006 Rs. 35,000/- 06. 1075/2007 34/2006 Rs. 23,000'- 07. 1074/2007 ! 35/2006 Rs. 18,000,'- 08. W.P.(C)No.5654/2007 }3(M006~ Rs. 7,000/- 09. 5655/2007 31/2006 Rs. 5,000/- 10. 5656/2007 23/2006 Rs. 3,000/- .11. ~" 5659/2007 j 25/2006 Rs. 5,000/- 12. 5660/2007 28/2006 Rs. 7,000/-. 13. ~" 5661/2007T24/2006!! Rs. 8,000/- 'iiWi g pay cornpensation on the Insurance Company on the ground tha^ under the policy of insurance the nsk of workman or labour wai covered and the claimants were traveiing in the matador as iabourer^ of the respondent No. 2. 7. Shri Uttam Pandey, iearned counsel for respondent No.2/ownet did not dispute the foliowing in this appeal: (a) that the respondent No. 2 was the owner of the matador bearing No. CG 04 G/8946 on the dste of accident; (b) that the above mentioned matador was insured as goods vehicle under the pohcy of insurance issued by thi| appeliant/petitioner Insurance Company, and (c) that under the policy of insurance carrying of passenger^ for hire or gratuiious passengers in the Matador wa^ pro'nibited and wouid amoLintto a breach ot' policy issueti by the insurance company. 8. The respondent No. 1/Ciaimant had in his appiication und^r Section 166 of Motor Vehscles Act mentioned that the said matadctr bearing No. CG 04 G/8946 was carry'ing 45-50 persons from Viilag^ Luk to Viliags Sonesarar for the v/ork of piantatiun. The respondei))t No.2/owner in a!l the ciaim cases took the plea that no accident ha^l occurred on 29.07.2005 with thesaid matador owned by him. Th^ ^olicy of insurance was filed by the appeliant/petitioner lnsuranc|p Company which reveais, as admitted by the learned counsel for th^e respondent No. 2/owner, that the said matador vvas insured pureiy asja goods carrying commercial vehicle in vi/hich risk of 7 employees w^s covered. It is not the case of the respondent No. 2/owner that thj'e claimants were his employees in' the said matador which was insur^d as goods carrying commerciai vehide. Not only this respondent No.|2 entered the vvitness box but dia not say a word as to w'nether iVfe claimants were his ernpioyees. On the contrari/, he has deniec; tHie factum or accident in his statement fcefors the iVIACT. The ctaimaht has deposed that at the tirne of the accident she was ira'.'eiing in tl^e said mataaor for going to viliage Sonesarsr for tne purpose .bf {- ws' 1 vsss if -^- plantation operation as a labourer. Even the claimants did not depo^ thatthey were under employment of respondent No. 2/owner. 9. In this view of the matter it is ciearly borne out from Vf\, evidence on record that the ciaimants were traveling in the sa| matador not as employees of the respondent No. 2/owner'but ^ gratuitous passengers vyhich constitutes a fundamental breach of th] poiicy of insurance issued by the appeHant/petltioner. In this view the matter, learned MACT erred in av/ardlng compensation against th| appellant/petitioner Insurance Company. The award passed by th| 1V1ACT is llabie to be set aside to th^Sxtent. 10. In the result, all the Miscellaneous Appeals and Writ Petitionl are aliowed. \ Tha award passed by the MAGT is| modified. Th^ appellant/petitioner-lnsurance Company is exonerated from the liabilit to pay compensation. The liability to pay compensation in ail the case^ referred in para 2 rests soiely on the respondent No.2/owner. It sha], be open t6 the appeliant/petitioner Insurance Company to initiat execution proceedings to recover the amount of compensatioi| statutoriiy deposited by it under the proviso to Section 1 73 of the Motot Vehicles Act from the respondent No. 2/owner. Sdi- ^] ^ o'llpRaoss Deshmukh ^.