BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fCl N0.^G/ OF 2007 PETITXONER '*•?"' .^•T" -.. ^^A- <;.• .^-^ ^^^^' b.^3^?"t' •:"..-.':'''^-:" ')n The New India Assurance Company Limited, through - Divisional Manaqer the New India Assurance •a RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT OWNERCUM DRIVER 1. 2. Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite- Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur [C.G.]. VERSUS Thanu Ram S/o Shri Mahangu Satnami, aged about 35 years, R/o village- Luk, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsil- 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 Station- Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CDNSTITUTrON OF INDIA ^ailBWNMiitfBUdiNiiiBtiaaiiiaaidii »U_^^n-.n>.--ri--L---<-1C^^I.J is1 SK :— HSGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Di'i'p RaosahebDeshmukh, J. APPELLANT: RESPQNDENTS CLAiMANT Owner cum Driver Misc, Apj)eal (C.) No. 1062/2007 The New India Assurance Compa^y Limited, through - Divisional Manag^r, The New india Assurance Compatiy Limited. Biiaspur, 2nd Floor, Ran|a Trade Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Pla^a, Bus Siand, Bilaspur (C.G.) | Versus 1. Samudiya Bai W/o Shri Budhj&ri Satns.T!!, aged about 50 years, f^fo Viliage ~ Luk, P.0. - Sahaspur, TahsiJ;- Saja, P.S. Dh.amdha, District Dt|rg (Chh&tti&garh) .1 2. Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Pilu Ram, ag||sd abcut 32 years, R/o Village Sonesar|r, Tahsil and Police Station Dhamd|a, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Misc. Appeai UncierSectionl73 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 APPELLANT: M.A.fC.iNo. 1078/2007 The New india Assurance Compsjiny Limited, through - Divisional Mana^r, The New india Assurance Compfny Limited, Bilaspur, 2nd Ftoor, Ra|jna Traa's Contre, Opposite - Rajeev PI^Za, Bus Siand, Bliaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPQNDENTS CLAiMANT 1. Owner eum Driver Wiakhsn S/o Sakharam Satnami, afied about 30 years, resident of Villagt - Luk, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsii - S|ija, P.S. Dhamdha, District qiirg (Chhattisgartf) ! % Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Piiu Ram,a| about 32 years, R/o Village Sonesa|j Tahsil and. Police Station Dhamd Dist.'ic; Durg (Chhattisgarh) Misc. Appeai UnderSection.173 oLEViotoLVehicles Act.1938 led rar, iha, ._ir-_-...-. •v^Wiii^^ffSWllWtbl^e^, t^i£; :^s^;'' tS-a:. 9SS as •-^g®^?- 1S^!^ ^8B^^i; ^^^s^ ::SSSSIS' issss^ 'SSK'S '^^&:^. 39SS9s ISfiS' ?A^^^:^-: Misc. Appeai (Cl No. 1079/2007 RESPONDENTS CLAiiVlANT Ownercym Driver The New India Assurance Company] Limitsd, through - Divisional Manager.i The New India Assurance Company]| Umited, Bilaspur, 2"° Floor, Rams Trade Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Plaz; Bus Stana, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versijs Ghanshyam, S/o Goverdhan Satnami aged about 30 years, R/o Village - Lul<{, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsil - Saja, P.S| Dhamdha, DistriGt Durg (Chhattisgarh) Kamta Prasad S/o S'nri Piiu Ram, aga{ about 32 years, R/o Viliage Sonesara{ Ta'nsii and Poiice Station Dhamdhi District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Misc. ADDeai Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicies Act. 1988 APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS CLAiMANT Owner cym lisc. Appeal (C.) No. 1077%007 The New India Assurance Compai|y Limited, through -^ Divisional Manag|r, The Ne',v india Assarance Compaiy Limited, Bilaspur, 2"° Fioor, Ranja Tracie Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Plaz]|j, Bus Stand, Biiaspur (C.G.) Versys 1. Dharmendra, S/o Gautariha Satnar]ni, aged about 22 years, R/o Village - Lipk, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsil - Saja, P Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh 2. Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Pilu Ram, a^ed about 32 years, R/o Viltage Sonesar]ar, Tahsii and Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) s. Misc. Appeai Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Misc, Appeai JC.1 No, -1Q76/2Q07 APPELLANT: The New/ India Assurance Comp^iny Limited, through - Qivisional Mana^er, The Ne\v india Assurance Comp|iny Limited. Biiaspur, 2"° Floor, Ra]ma Trsde Centre, Opposite - Raj'eev PlaJiZa, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) SSK.- B@ «K '^^^.! 5^^^:s' RESPONDENTS CLAilWANT Owner cum Driver 3- Versus Ratnu, S/o Dhnau Satnami, aged abou( 60 years, R/o Village - Luk, P.0. Sahaspur, Tahsii - Saja, P.Sj Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Pilu Ram, aged|, about 32 years, R/o Viliage Sonesarar,); Tahsil and Police Station Dhamdha.i Distnct Durg (Chhattisgarh) Misc. ApReal UnderSection 173 of Motor Vehides Act, 1988 Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1075/2007 APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS CLA'MANT Ownercum Driver 2. The New india Assurance Company Limfted, through - Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2 F[oor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Pfaza, Bus Stana, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Surujs Bai, VV/o Shri Ratnu, aged about 47 years, R/o Village - Luk, P.0. Sahaspur, Tahsi! - Saja, P.S. Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Kamta Prasad S/o S'nri Piiu Ram, aged about 32 ysars, R/o Village Sonesarar, Tahsil and Poiice Station Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Misc. Appeal Under Section 173of Motor Vehicles'Act,1988 IViisc. Appeai (C) No. 1074^007 APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS CLAiMANT 1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, through - Divisional Manager, The Ne\v India Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2 Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Bitaspur (C.G.) Versus Smt. Surujs Bai, Wd/o Shri Balwant Satnami, aged about 50 years, R/o Viilage - Luk, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsil - Saja, P.S. Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) _.—-—-^--'-- ^3^^^s «'wKwnriS@amas S 4 iS- Ownercym Driver 2. Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Pilu Ram, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Sonesarar, Tahsil and Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhaftisgarh) lisc. Appeai Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicies Act. 1988 sa W,P.(C,)No. 5654/2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT Owner cum Driver The New India Assurance Company Limited, through - Divisional Manager, The New 'ndia Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2" Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite - Raj'eev Pfaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (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 Viliage Sonesarar, Tahsil and Poiice Station Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) a •: i^il?v£;l sss- iaw-' Writ Petition Undej_Artic|e_227_of1JTe^onstihit!oiionnd^ W.P. (C.) No. 5655/2007 PETiTlpNER RESPONDENTS CLAIMANI Owner^ym Driver The New India Assurance Company Limited, through - Divisiona! Manager, The Nev^ India Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2nd Floor, Rama Tracie Cer.tre, Opposite - Rajeev Piaza, BusStand, Biiaspur (C.G.). Versys 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 (Chhattisgarh) i Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Pilu Ram, aged about 32 vsars, R/o Village Sonesarar, Tahsi! and Poiice Staiion Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) KSs Kil Writ Petition Under &rtici_e227_onne.^p!istjtutjon of incsia 'SBB'y ::",@Sg'? s^siss' PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CLAfiVIANT Ownercym Driver W.P. (C.) No. 5656/2007 The New india Assurance Company Limited, through - Divisional Manager, T'ne New India Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2 Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versys 1. Goverdhan, S/o Shri Hariram Satnami, aged about 50 years, R/o Village - Luk, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsiil -Saja, P.S. Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2. Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Pilu Ram, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Sonesarar, Tahsit and Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Writ Petition UndeTArt!c!,el2Lof_the^oi^titytion of India, W.P. (C.} No. 5658/2007 PETITtQN£R RESPONDENTS CLA1MANT Owner cum Driver The New India Assurance Company Limited, through - Divisional Manager, The Nev</ India Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2"° Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versys Chinta Ram, S/o Shri Dulaku Satnami, aged about 50 years, R/d Viliage - Luk, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsii - Saja, P.S. Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Kamta Prasad S/o Shri Rilu Ram,aged about 32 years, FPo Vil^ge Sonesarar, Tahsil and Poiice Station Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Writ Petition Und_erArtic!e^27_ofjth.e^j]isjitytion^Ondia Ss^S^ alh .P. (C.) No. 5660/2007 The New India Assurance Company Ljmited, through - Divisional Manager|; The New India Assurance Compan^ Limited, Bilaspur, 2 ! Floor, Ram^ Trade Centre, Opposite—Rajeev P!aza[, Bus Stand, Biiaspur (C.G.) Versys ^ 1. Santu, S/o Shri Budhari Satnami, ageig about 35 years, R/o Village - Luk, P.Q. Sahaspur, Tahsil , - Saja, PSf, Dhamdha, District Durg|(Chhatt!sgarh) 2. Kamta Prasad S/o Shri; Pilu Ram, agei|J about 32 years, R/o Village Sonesarai^ Tahsil and Police Station Dhamdhsl, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Writ Petition Under Article 227 of the Consfitution of india W.P.LC.lNo.S'oSI/200.7 The New india Assurance Company Limited, through - Divisional Mariagsf, The New india Assurance Companfc' Limited, Bilaspur, 2 Floor, Trade Centre, Opposite - Rajeev Plazai, Bus Stand, Biiaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Thanu Ram, S/o ,Shri Mahang!p Satnami, aged about 35 years, Wp Village - Luk, P.0. - Sahaspur, Tahsil, Saja, P.S. Dhamdha, District Dui|9 (Chhattisgarh) : ; 2. Kamta Prasad S/o Shrj Pilu Ram, ag^fl about 32 years, R/o Village Sonesara| Tahsii and Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Writ Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Present SIS21 '^1:^' ^^/.-^•^ I Shri Saurabh Sharma, counse! for the appeliant/petitioner. Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsei for respondent No.1. Shri Uttam Pandey, counsei for respondent No.2. -t- ~1 BB SSK^ ^^:^;: • !S ^&^.:^^-'- A ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18th November, 2007) Heard on admission. 2. Bylthis common order Misc. Appeal (C) Nos. 1062/20C(7, 1078/2007, 1079/2007, 1077/2007, 1076/2007, 1075/2007, 1074/2007 and W.P;(C) Nos. 5654/2007, 5655/2007, 5656/2007, 5659/20q7, 5660/2007 and 5661/2007 filed by the insurance company are bei(?ig disposed of atthe stage of admission with the consent ofthe parties.i|) 3. The foliowing chart would give the details of compensatifan awarded by the MACT against the appellant/insurance company: Sr. No. 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. 11. 12. 13. Misc. Appeal (C.) No./ Writ Petition (C.) No. Claim Case No. M.A.(C)No. 1062/2007 27/2006 Compensation awarded ! Rs. l8,000/- 1078/2007 33/2006 Rs. 35.000;'- 1079/2007 26/2006 Rs. 23,000/- 1077/2007 32/2006 1076/2007 29/2006 1075/2007 34/2006 1074/2007 35/2006 Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 35.000/- Rs. 23.000/- Rs. 18.000/- W.P.(C)No. 5654/2007 30/2006 Rs. 7,000,'- 5S55/2007 31/2006 5656/2007 23/2006 5659/2007 25/2006 Rs. 5,000;'- Rs. 3.000/- Rs. 5,000/- 5660/2007 18/2006 Rs. 7.000/- 5661/2007 24/2006 Rs. 8.000/- 4. The only point for consideration in all the aforesaid Miscellaneous Appeais and Writ Petitions is as to whether the MAlpT ought to have exonerated the appellant/lnsurance Company from 1|he iiability to.pay compensation due to a fundamental breach of policy. f 5. Brief facts are that on 29.07.2005, the claimants in all <he aforesaid Miscellaneous Appeals and Writ Petitions were trave!irisi|in Metador No. CG 04 G/8946, a goods vehicie owned by responde|.ht No. 2 and insured by the.appelSant'petitioner Insurance Company. 7]he claimants sustained injuries due to the matador turning turtie as|| a result of rash and negiigent driving of the respondent No. 2/owner. ;| ^- • :- i Jl! . 6. Thte MACT, held that the accicient was caused due to rashalhd negligent|driying by respondent No. 2/owner. ]t fastened the liability|to. jisajg»w»«i'e'> Tw^\ ;i /' ^ ;,S;E- aiK ».!» SsE^K i '^^S^isF^^ g pay compensation on the Insurance Company on the ground thg under the policy of Insurance the risk of workman or labour was covered and the claimants were traveling in the matador as labourers ofthe respondent No. 2. 7. Shri Uttam Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.2/owne| did not dispute the foliowing in this appeal: (a) (b) (c) 8. The that the respondeht No. 2 was the owner of the matadg bearing No. CG 04 G/8946 on the date of accident; that the above mentioned matador was insured as goods vehicle under the policy of insurance issued by th^ appeilant/petitioner Insurance Company, and that under the policy of insurance carrying of passengerj for hire or gratuitous passengers in the Matador wa^ prohibited and would amounttoa breach ofpolicy issuet by the insuranceeompany. | i ;| respondenf No. 1/Ciaimant had in his application und^r Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act mentioned that the said matad^r ;1 bearing N6. <?G Q4 G/8946 was carrying 45-50 persons from Villag^ -Luk to Viliage So.nesarar for the work of plantation. The respondei|t No.2/owner in all the claim eases took the plea that no accident ha|d occurred on 29.07.2005 with the said matador owned by him. T^e policy of insurance was nled by the appellant/petitioner lnsuranc|e Company which reveals, as admitted by the learned counsel for We respondent No. 2/ownsr, that the said matador was insured purely asj.a goods carrying commercial vehicle in which risk of 7 employees Wc(s covered. It is not the case of the respondent No. 2/owner that tl'ie claimants were his employees in' the said matador which was insur^d as goods carrying commerciai vehicle. Not only this respondent No.p entered the witness box but did not say a vvord as to whether ttje claimants were his empioyees. On the contrary, he has denied tl^e ;factum of accident in his statement before the MACT. The claimajlt ;;has deposed that at the time of the accident she was traveling in Wfe )|said matadqr for going to viliage Sonesarar for the purpose ^f 3SSs saaaaRB '^^^t^^:l 'J^^^-^ 'Ssff^ •Bi?;;:' 1fe/ Sf^: •^^:.:•'.' 'at- plantation operation asa labourer, Even the claimants did not depo^i that they were under empioyment of respondent No. 2/owner. 9. In this view of the matter it js clearly borne out from tll evidence on record that the claimants were traveling in the sa} y,s matador not as employees of the respondent No. 2/owner but s|s gratuitous passengers which constitutes a fundamental breach of th]i policy of insurance issued by the appellant/petitioner. In this view <yf the matter,!!earned MACT erred in av/arding compensation against th| appellanfpetitioner Insurance Company. The award passed by th| MACT is liabie to be set aside to thff(extent. 10. in the result, all the Miscellaneous Appeals and Writ Petitionj are allowed. The award passed by the MACT is modified. Th< appellant/petitioner-lnsurance Company is exonerated from the liabiiit to pay compensation. The Ijabilit/ to pay compensation in ail the case^ referred in para 2 rests soiety on the respondent No.2/ov/ner. It sha|l be open to the appellanVpetitioner Insurance Company to initiatf execution proceedings to recover the amount of compensatioiji statutoriiy deposited by it under the proviso to Section 1 73 of the Motot Vehicies Act from the respondent No. 2/owner. Sd/- DUipRaosahebDeshmukh Judge =muu^3?'3=^ES£KEUS^SElI=ISiCEECT=3i5=StenaCT=tti=i=C=aS&3flB»=T^ rtUq^+^.wifCHSdiLaasihttB'Siflrim-iiltiAUi^*'