;C—78 3^cr ^i^i<?')<4, ^>Tn^4i<s, fsi^i'f-iy '^ ^TR^IT <*^|1<*» ^...ti..A:..C9.......98&/............^ 200^- 3?RF?T ^S^! ( 4<st?^<sl<^ ) 37T^T ?5T'RFri^T j ^T8H 3TT^T 5b^icti r '^TTW^tU 3^T APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS/: (Claimants) ct)i^i<rt^1ri HiH<rff '^\'feT:st <Pn^i< ^73tf?R<3TT^T Uday Singh, aged about 34 years, S/o Late Shri Jaipal Singh, R/o Village Semra, Tahsil Nawagarh District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE) Ram Pratap, aged about 26 years, S/o Shri Sakharam Sahu, R/o Village Semra, Tahsil Nawagarh District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE) Versus • ^. Gangotri Bai, aged about 35 years, Widow of Late Shri Vakku Kashayp; Ramla Bai, aged about 15 years, D/o Late Shri Vakku Kashayp; Kamla Bai, aged about 10years, D/o Late Shri Vakku Kashayp; Jitendra, aged about 7 years, S/o Late Shri Vakku Kashayp; Dharmendra. aged about 5 years, S/o Late Shri Vakku Kashayp; Mukesh, aged about 2 years, S/o Late Shri Vakku Kashayp; Respondents No.2 to 6l are Minors, through their natural guardian mother Gangotri Bai and all are resident ofVSIIage Heeragarh, Police Station & Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir (C.G.) National Jnsurance Company Limited, Branch Korba, Through: The Branch Manager, Kosabadi XI-HC—78 3:S5T ^ll^l^, ($Tf1'y<i<s, fs)0l'(-l^< ^TI^T^ f^r{ich 'd^T STT^T s^+iicr) s- ^ l»f ^ Kl<4dl *Ni<sh .^.•.A....C^......9S..i 3TT^T ^^ (^l^^) '•"^ 200?- '^TTW^rf^r 3:n^r (Appeal under Sectionl Division Bench: Hon'ble Mr. LC. Bhadoo and Hon'ble Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinh 24-8-2007 Mr. V.K. Pandey, counsej Heard. Oral order dictated on Dal Sunil Kumar Sinha. J: - This appeal is directed adainst the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents No.66/2007, whereby the Clfcims Rs.3,92,000/- to the claimants 1 annum from the date ofapplicati^ fled held This appeal has been vehicle, because it has been therein, including the appeltants payment of the said amount. shall be deposited by the Insur^nce Insurance Company shall be entStled because, a finding has been vehicle was being driven jn breach <=M^f<n<fli ^w^f ^f^^i <P»i^8< '^^ff^H^T^T Chowk, Near Ninanka Talkies, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) (INSURER) 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988) J-J. for the appellants. 18. ;the award dated 18-6-2007 passed by Claims Tribunal, Janjgir in M.A.C.T. Tribunal has awarded a sum of |along with interest at the rate of 6% per >n till its reajization. by owner and driver of the offending by the Tribunal that all th^ non-applicants ^erein, shall bejointly and severally liable for has been further directed that the amount Company in the first instance and the to recover the amount from the owner, r^corded in para 13 of the award that the of the Jnsurance poHcy. \A xi-yc—78 3TT^?T ?7T f<rli<=h TT8n '^n^T'^iNr ^ 3^cT ^l^l^^l, ^Tfi'f-l'Ko, [si^iy^ W^T ^^...W.A-.^.....^/................^ 200^ 3Ti^?T XH^ ( ^f^^T) '^TTW Trit^r 3?r^r The daim petition was 2006 deceased Vakku was tra\ with other passengers which m< filed account of the said accident. ^ appellants herein, have filed presented by the claimants and| taken for bringing articles of Ba|' notice as to when the deceasecj the said vehicle. The Insuranc^ vehicle was jnsured as a goo<| carrying passengers, as the Insurance Companywould not compensation when a Barati hasj sanfte Ram Kumar, whose sor witness in this case. He has de( the matador. He has admitted ii| of the award, that he had taken with an intention to bring goods| was his close relative, thereforel admitted that he had taken th< observed that the above version the criminaf case. It was also owner have only denied the any explanation. Discussing th< a finding that on the date of ac( <^Nf<n<fli 'RPT^f ^Fs^) <p5i<^i< ^T ^tRFT ^TT^T by the claimants pleading that on 18-4- telling in matador No.CG-11/ZB-0187 along ^t with the accident. The deceased died on {on-applicants No.1 & 2 therein who are the |heir written statement denying the Glaim Ipleaded that in fact, the matador was being 1-at from Village: Khera and the driver could not- boarded the matador and was travetling in Company took the plea that the offending |s vehicle, whereas it was being used for was taking the Barat party, therefore, the ^e responsible for payment of the amount of 1 died jn the accident. was married, has been examined as a |>osed that the Barat of his son was goingby cross-examination, as observed in para 11 ^hat vehicle,along with Baratis sjtting therein^ |from the place of marriage. The deceased he was also going in the Barat. He also sajd matador on rent. The Tribunal has jofthe witness is supported by the records of o|3served that against this evidence, driver & ofthe accident and they have not given above evidence, the Tribunal has recorded ^ident, the offending vehicle (matador) was factjum \.^ MIB' XI-HC—78 ^^5( ^ll^l^, ?$Tfi<-l^|(o, [s|<l'>t'M'4>< ® 3:n^RT ??T f<r<lch TT^TT'3TI^T ^qN? ^^ ^T ^;....UA....Cc2...^/.. 3^t?T 'q^F (yd^<^T) -^ 200^- ^RTTW^rf^T'STT^T carrying Baratis which met with) passengers were travelling on| insured as a goods vehicle. Learned counsel for the was not a passenger in the saidj not notice as to when by the said vehicle. the deceafsed an accident and it was a case in which the a goods vehicle which was registered and appellants argues that in fact, the deceased /ehicle. He also argued that the driver could cljmbed in the vehicte and was travelllng The above contention of accepted in view of the evidenc was taking place, and who had He has categorically stated, as Baratis were travelling in the said matador was being taken articles from the mamage place. reasoh We do not find any whose evidence is supported by This witness was working as a la taking advantage of thjs situatior payment of diesel charges only para 10 ofthe award on the basi Since the vehicle was in^ured material on record it was being the Claims Tribunal has rightly breach of policy and in the saii -7" J_l <=bl^f<r1^ft?T 'RFI^f '^\<fe(st <p5l^l< '^'a^RRa^r jearned counsel for the appeltants cannot be of Ram Kumar, the marriage of whose son ired this matador for taking Parat of his son. Inentioned in para 11 of the award, that the m^tador at the time of accident, because the |by him for the purpose of bringing dowry to disbelieve the evidence of this witness |the contents of documents of criminalcase. |3our (hammal) in the said goods vehicle and he had hired the vehicle on the condition of as has been observed by th6 Triubnal in of evtdence of driver itself. as a goods vehicle and as per the {jsed for carrying the passengers (Baratis), t-ecorded the finding ttiat it was a case of circumstanc^, the owner of vehicle was \\ XI-HC—78 W^T^T'f^TRT ^STT 'sn^r 5h^iicti Soma 3^cT ^Tpn^T, ^Tfty'KS, ts|0t'M^< W^T g^...B.A.Ca.....9.»y.............^ 200^ 3^^ xn^E ( ii^fTi^<4?T) '^TTW^TT W^T responsible for payment of cor|ipensation on aTOOunt of the death of the deceased by committing breach |of policy. Therefore, we do not find| dismissed and it is accordingly d|smissed, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge I J-.. /--^- <=hl^f<rt<flrl TTR^f ^.f^^ <l^l^i< ^ ^tRP? STT^T any merit in this appeal, same is liable to be I, in limine. — Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge \^ ii