IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF GMHATTESGARH AT BXLASPUR 1? t2:^)o ,.r> Kl' MISC. APfEAUC) N0. »-s OF 2@89- MISCELLANEOUS APPEALUNbER SECTION 173. MQTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 ABpellant Non-ApplicantNo. 3 3 ^ Respondents -^t v/^- ^•^'^^^ ^l:^. -;E-'?,'.&- United Indid Insurahce Co. Ltd. R.B. Traders, First Floor, Satyam Road, T.P.Nagr, Korba(G6) Versus 1. Baisdkhuram, S/o Sdmaruram, aged about 35 years, R/o Thakurkheta, Tahsil Korba, Distt. Korba (CG) Vehicle Driver 2. ©aneshram,, S/o Banshirdm, aged abouf 48 years, R/o Aretara, Tahsil and Distt. Korba (CG) Vehicle Owner Non-ADplicdnts no. 1 & 2 3. Smt. Tiharpbai, W/o Late Huleshram, aged 40year's 4. Minor Samifa, D/o Late Hulesram, clged 14years 5. Mirior Sunita, t)/o Late Hulesram, aged llyears 6. Minor Suraj, S/o Late Hulesram, aged 7 years 7. Minor Sa"ita, D/o Late Hulesram, agedSyears 8. Mandram S/o Hoharsai,aged 65 years - 9. Smt. Samari Bai, W/o Manardm, aged 60 years ^- © (Sl.No. 4 to 7 nre minors, through Suardidnat litem Mother Smt. Tiharobai, Wd/o Late Huleshram, aged 40 years) (All Caste - Kanwqr, R/o Village 6odma, Tahsiland Distt. Korba(CG) Claiioants CLAIM IN APPEAL FOR SFTTIN6 ASI&E ANI> / OR MONFICATrON OF AWARD. WLUED AT RS. 3.57.000/--- FIXEDCOURT AFFIXEDRS. 15/- ^'^ ^ i"& WIW CGURTOR €l-B*tl~I3S&*RHATO.ASBUl .^.-,;(»IVISIONiBeNCH^.,.::^^^^^^^ Hc^BLE^i;«5ea.»:tf»i^ HON'BLE < .6Ut^M <JttNHjSjytt&INsAT ApoeUant RMBtHithnts fA.A.tetNa.l3/»OW Vs 'BttisakhuranK&wtl'wrs Prwnft :" : ' " ":':':,' : .;..'l"t:1''''" Mr. S.S. AgapNnl/AdwCBrte far •the flppeUant. None forlte re^onclenlallieMghsei'ved^ ^l" JWM. I.M. 1. Heard. 2. This isdn msurer^eppeat|<)uiMtionn^^e1iabi^ ^ 3. By t»ayof 1*iis <ipp«^underSeet-ien 173 oftheAltotor ^hictesAct, 1988 (fw short- the Aef), the OppeUarrt^a>iaponcft &mpin^Aae in^ugi^^^t^ dBted 26.10.2009 paaed by Ihe learned AAotor ^cieli^ €Uw^^ Korba (f^ (for short- the Cfaima TribungF) n Ctaim^^ase N<fc389/2007 ' awarding con^ensatieri of Rs.3^,00<V- to •llw.daimai'rts^^^d^ direction to Ihe oppeNont-&isurance Coniptmy^to ftrsf;siMisfy 1he a^dantt then recover -rtie same from th? <wwier of veUcle. 4. Facts of the case, in brfef, are Ihat' on 26»7.20jB7;;deecasaeli.t-M^si'am .Niua \ -• . '"'•. '.' "• ' ••' " ' • •':'•'••'•'.•'•• •:• •'•'•.'• •'•••'.':' •"••'^". ••••'••'.'•:'"•. '••;- ;"'.'" r • '' •••:• re-himirg from Village Ke^ to ^dma ^ ^wJ^ registratwn nunAer C612-F-019S6 A <^t2-F-(@S^^aasR«siB-My»j|^;af^ <»mplethigdgriajlturd*»ork.H<»NN^r,.onAe-^ driving by 1tie driyier of sddtnt<^r-^Ueyplhe-deGeaaetfa)|e ade|ii^itF^^ troctor, sustained griewus ^^^••i^,.^ed.^fAi^^^^M^ ^^wj^-i!fhs Police Stution Bak»hfagar, l&rba (C^ Thecldina t^^sp<Nielffrte^ 9 have ctaimed compensatlon on the ground^at •AeyiWei^dqi^^ deceased, who wus 1tie wteearair^ memberA) famUy,!dw&di»^ Ihey havesuffensd loss of income. • ...^y' ,^ .^ 5. The Claims Tribunal flrftowed. Ihe «laim o|^tiGat»n;"w»ittKl^.a^^s^ fts.3,67,000/- as compensation atong wi-th intw^ ^ ^%> pa; fronfc •theAte of qiplkwfion and held ihc.owmerAdFivep^-tfee-of^nding iwhjetetiebte to pay amount of compensorrion. Hewever, it has beentlii*ct»daby'the€)aims Tribunal ihat Ihe Inajrunce Compcmy .shnlt firct ^aay th«i<mo^ coinpensation *o ttw ckiimants and llwn aecovep itw aame'fnim 1'ba^oNiner of ...•the.vehicleLinquestion. ....^.,,.. a'. . .,,........,......:.... , - -,..,, •,^.,,,,.,..,.... .^ . 6. Leorned counsel for the appelkmt-Inaiwnce Cofflpeny hns subinitted •ttiat in ttie facts cndcircumshances of case •the deceased ccnnot ba-N'eated as "rturd j- party and thus, the Clairtis Tribunal has erred in passirg the direction regarding payandFecover . -• ...^^...^.. .^^ 7. We have heard teamed couhsel for tha cppetlent and pwused tiw reeordsof > the Claims Tribundl as ulso •the findin9S gjjwn h Ihe uiyugned cnBard^ « 8. It is true Itiat Ihe Hori'bte Apex Court- in Ihe matter of Nttonal Imannw Conyany Vs. Swarn ®nghA othws rqwrted in (2004) 3 S£C 297 has directed •that the Insumnce Compony shalt pay the anwuntof cempet'wation. to the ctainwnts cnd thereafter rewver •the snme ft»rmthe owmer of vehicle. The judgment of th®Hon'bte Supreme Court in Ihe niatter of Swam Singh > (supru) is related to third'partyaccident.wihcrecBl'thepreaentis notacase of1hirdpartyaccyenf.In the present case •Nw deceaasd wws occupant of the troctoF-trottey N*ijch t»asbeing plied m viotetion of conditions of •rtie insuronce poliey as at Ihe time of accittent the deceased tranwlmg in Kwi vehicle ih question, whereas Ihere wws ne dtl'ing capacMy In Ae vehicte 'vn question. Therefore, the principtes taid down 'm Ae S«nn»Singh's caae (aipru) woutd not be applicalrie in the facts bf the present case. Thus,the impugned award of Ihe Claims Tribunal, at one hdnd exoneiating the Insurance Company from its Uabili-ty end a»Kie same Time directing 1-opay theclaiipants emd Iheheafter recover fpom Ae oi»ner,ts erroneous; 9. In the resuh-. the dppeal isutloNied and Kw iMpagnwi aMwd directmytlw appetlant-Insurunce Cbmpany to first pay •the coaperuaEtiwi anrf •tt'iuieaftBr recover ihe same from Ae owier of vehicte-in-questkm ta.hereby ae»aside and it is held 1hat hekl •ttiatthe eppellait - Inaurunce C8mpany4s ne* Iwbte "to poy any compensation te -the clainwnts involwd m thc Impogned aiiard ondtke ^r- SEune shatl be paid by the ownw.wf vdiicte-in-queation-onty. In cose any nmountdeposltedt^theappdlent-InsunaiceCen^anyhaa^to Ihe claimants, it twll be open for •the Insuru'ice CoHNpany -h» FCOWW' Ihe same from the owner of vehicle. However, if •Iteamount, so.depoai'ted, Itoa not been withdruwn so ^far, the Insurunce-Company^shaU be altowedi,*o wtriidniw •the same. Rest of the conditions.andifindbigsof^'rtw impugned cniwrd are hereby confirmed. It is herebyclcu'ifwd'Aiate-ttaeetaimarrtsawfi'w^to executelheflniiardagainsttheotiineroflhev^jde-toyquestlon^^^ ;, tocosts. ,. \ .. . . , , , .. , - , ., , . . .|tO.Cert'ified«>pyosperrutes. Sd/- DR. LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- ,^:- G. Minhajuddin Judge r