lil.iii-" w.\ ;rtl.! ^ '^\'; f!!! A'FBII.ASPURta.G.l ^ M.A.(C1 No. •^.^.1. QF 2007 ^''•.:^:51':'':':1''^''']^jtAPPEALVALlTEDATRs. 1^5^00^-1 APPE^KV^@®I^S^©p©^^^^iF^I*H^^ffi3gEJ^^ 1 ^^ELAN^ .^NQN-APPLIGANT '^NQ.S):'1': .:..::'1..:1':'.:;'^ KE^SEQNDENTS (APPLICANTNO.l) (: APPLICANTNo; i^^ ^•" :1^". (NplNf-APPLIGANT .^.1)::]'.,1:1.':,1",:',( (NON-APPLIGANT ^.2):.::.,,,^ ,::'; iHidia^ lasyrance Cbmpanly I^.^^^^^^^^^^ ^ ^orn:pt^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ chowk, j Bilaspur, P.S. Civil L^e^ ^ -(C.G.)^'!1'..-:J:.:' 11^ YERSUSJ ^^ Melaram CNnt^ Sj/^ Janakrapi Gond,^^^^^^^^^^^^^ a^ years, caste- Gond, ^. Smt.^^^^^^^^M^ Melaram Gond,^^^^^^^ A^ Years, c^ste-Gorid, R/0-Village- Salhe^iori (Parakoledi) O.P.-Pachpedi, P.S. & j Tah.-Masturi, Distt.- Bilaspui1(CGr). ^ ^ Titigu @| I^amod §/Q-Jagdish Kaivail:, |^^^^^^ A Rahtator^ O.P.-Pach^etdi, P.S.85 €ah,- Ma|sturi, Distt. - BUaspur (G.G.) (Tfactor-Driver). JQ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Kaiv^, ^ged - 50 ^ars.^^^R Rahtator^ Tah. & I^S.^ast^ E)istt.-fillaspyl'tC.GT.) (Owner Qf Tractor^ ^ ^. HIGH CQURTOF CHHAniS©ATO<AT BILA^IN^ M.A.{CiNo.561of20@7 APPBLLANT RESPONDENTS United Indlia Insurance Coinpany Limited. Versus htelaram Gond & otheis. MISCELUMyBOUS APPEAL UNDBRSECmON ty^OP THE MOTOR ^HICt;tXCT.1^88. "1 ! :- •• (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwat. J.} Present : Mr. DashrathGuptei,counsetforyTe;appetlant. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, counsel l&r responderrts No. 1 and 2/clainnants. Mrs.Meena Shastri, counset for res^ondertfs No. 3 and 4. ORDER (21.07.2011) 1. The instarit appeai has been preferred by the appetlant/lnsurance Company against the award dated 07.02.2007, passed by the Addjtional Motor Accideiit Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case N@. 35/2006. 2. As against the compensatton of 1^.21,^.OOO/- olalmed by the claimantsas compensation Tor cteath of their sonlPremtsrf in the m©tor accident dated 17.5.2006, leamedTritlunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- along with Interest @ 7.8 % per annum from e date of appUcatlon till its ac^ial f^yment. J> 3. Learned Tribunal, on a ctose scruttny of the entire evidWGe led before it held : the accident has occurred due to rash and n^l^ent driving by the driver of tractor - trolley bearing regislratton No;C.G.10/A-7854andC.G.10/A-7855;appellant^n8uraiiceC©m|^ny is liable for payment of compensatlon as appellant/lnsurance Company has faitescl to prove violation of polteyconcKtJons; a^essed and awarded afore^id amount of compensatlon to the olalmants a^iinst the driver, owner and Insurance Company. 4. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned cour^el appearing for ie appetlant/lnsurMice Corepany by referring paragraph four ofthe clalm ^^ petitjon would submit: dec^as^l Premial was Labourer of offending tractor-trolley and was sitting in the traetor in his capacity as Labour at the tlme of accident. He would further submit that KIsan Package Policy i.e. Ex.D-4 issued by the appellant^lnsurance Company does not cover the risk of labour sitting in the tractor. This material aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Tribunal thereby learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 5. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants after perusing the policy woufei submit tt^t the policy In fact does not cover the risk of labour. 6 Smt. Meena Shastri, learned counsei appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4 would submit: amountawarded by the Tribunal is shockjngly on higher side. 7. I have heard eounsel for the parties and perused the material avaitable on record including impugned award. 8. Indisputably, deceased -Premlat was sitting as Labour in the tractor and the appellant/insurance Company neither statutorily liable for covering the risk of such labour sitting in the tractor nor had undertaken such risk by entering into special contract with the owner by charging extra premium therefor. In view of above, on the face, the Tribuna! has erred jn fastening the liabnity upon the appellant/lnsurance Company andthe above finding deserves to be set aside. 9. The deceased was a young boy of 18 years and the daimants are his parents. The deceased must have earned more money in future. Learned Trlbunal without takjng into caisideratlon the increase in the price index between 1994 and 2006 assessed the notionaj income of (he deceasedas Rs.15,000/- whereas he could have earned in the year 2006 at teast Rs. 36,0007- per annum. \, 10. The amount of compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of above broi^ht features of the case, 1 do not find any substance in the argument advanced by •^, Smt. Shastri, counsel for the owner of the vehicte. Moreover, owner has not preferred any appeal against the award impugned. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeai is partly allowed. Part of the award whereby the appellant/lnsurance Company held liable to pay compensation to the claimants is set aside. Award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. 12. The appellant/lnsurance Company is free to recover the amount which has already been disbursed to the claimants from the respondents/owner of the vehicte. Claimants are free to execute the award against the respondents/owner of the offending vehicle. 13. No order as to costs. D/- Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge