BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No.fO /2009 M n^^^ ^wK^ APPELLANT DEFENDANT N0.3 ^. ^ ^-^s^ Qi^-"" l,L^ :1, IFFCO- TOKIO GENERAL ^ INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 34 Nerhru Place, New Delhi -110019 through the Branch Manager, Iffco- Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd, 3rd Floor 345-347, Lalganga Shopping Mal, G.E Road Raipur (CG) .i^ VERSUS ESPONDENTS Suresh Prajapati, S/o Shri Samaru Prajapati, Aged about 29 years. Resident of Village & Post - Rauda, Potice Station & Thehsil. - Dhamdha, District - Durg ( C.G.). 2. Kamalnarayan Supanthak, S/o Late Shri Topsingh Supanthak, Aged about 33 years. Resident of Village- Garam Paraskol , Post - Rauda, Police Station & Thaehsil. - Dhamdha, District ~ Durg (C.G.). (driver of offending vehicle) ^3.1\ Kalendra Supanthak, S/o Late Shri Topsingh Supanthak, Resident of Village- Arasnara & Post - Nandakatti, Police Station- Nandani Nagar, Tha. - District - Durg ( C.G.). (owner of offending vehicle) "^^l-s—'z^^^l^.: PAGE No .4. -^] ^•- -^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLE ACT, 1988 ¥ te 1 ^ HIGHCOURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR -.^' ^ ^ \, IV3.A.(ClNo. 901 of 2009 APPELLANT DEFENDANT N0.3 RESPONDENTS IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL iNSURANCE COMPANY LIM1TED. Versys Suresh Prajapati and others MjscelJaneous appeai under Section 173 ofthe Motor VehJdesAct.1988 D.B: HON"BUEMRJUSTiCEN,K,AGARWAL& HON'BLE MR. JUST!CE G. IVSINHAJUDDSN PresenS : ShriYashwantSlnghThakur,!eamedcounseiforthe •ppeliants. Shri C.R. Sahu, counsei for respondent No. 1. Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsei for respondents No. 2 & 3. Per N.K. Aaarwal. J ORDER (22.08.2011) 1. This is insurer's appeaf against the award dated 3.1.2009 passed by Xil Addstional Motor Accident Claims Tribuna! (F.T.C.), Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') in Ciaim Case No. 21/2008 whereby and whereunder learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,86,591/- in favour of the claimant holding appeiiant/lnsurance Company liable for its payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- While ciaimant Suresh Prajapati was siiting in the tractor-troiiey as its labourer; the said tractor wasturned turtie, as a result of which ciaimant sustained multiple serious injuries leading to amputation of leftieg below knee. Claimant preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act claiming compensation of Rs.9,60,400 for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 3. By filing written statement appellarit/lnsurance Company denied its liability on the ground that the appellant/insurance Company is not tiabie to indemnify insured inasmuch as the injured/claimant was not covered under the policy as he was sitting in tractor-troliey in violation of policy conditions. 4. Learned Tribuna! on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence !ed before it held that the insurance Company failed to prove its defence and awarded an amount of Rs.4,86,591/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application tiil its payment. 5. Shri Y.S.Thaukur iearned counsel appearlng for the appellant/lnsurance Company would submit: the owner has breached the pottey condition inasmuch as he allowed the claimant to sit in the tractor and, therefore, learned Tribunai has fallen in error in fastening the Ijability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/insurance Company. However, he submits that as the appellant/lnsurance companycould not obtajn permission under Section 170 ofthe Motor Vehicjes Act, the appeal fiied by the appellant/lnsurance Company chatienging the quantum is not maintajnable. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the award impugned and would submit that the policy is comprehensive policy and coversthe riskofclaimant and, therefore, no illegality or irreguierrly has been committed by the Tribunal in fastening the tjabj!ity upon.the appeliant/lnsurance Company to pay compensation to the ciaimant. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materiai avaiiable on record inciuding impugned award. 8. Undisputabiy, the appellant/lnsurance Company under the policy has undertaken the risk of labourer by taking extra premium therefor and injured was sitting in thetractor as its labourer. 9. In view of above, appeJlant's/insurance Company contentions that the risk of injured. was not covered underthe poiicy orthe owner of the vehicte has violated the poiicy condition, are devoid of merit. 10. No other points have been raised. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeai fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 1 Sd/- Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge G. Minhajuddin Judge