IN THE HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.6.t Civil Revision N0. 3 OF 2011 APPLICANT: NON-CLAIMAINT RE5PONDENTS: ^LAIMANT J\ ^ n/' '.•••" .•-?""..-<<x' vy ,Premlal Sahu S/o Budhram Sahu, about 28 Years, r/o. Village - Bhakhra, Thana -'Bhakhara.Tahsil - Kurud, Distt.- Ohamtari, (C.6.) VERSUS Smt^Maheshwari W/o. Shri Siyaram Sahu aged about 32 Years, r/o. Village - Bhakhra, Thana'- Bhakhara,Tahsil - Kurud, Distt.- bhamtari, (C.6.) 2./ Nirmal Kumar Maheshwari S/o. Kishan Maheshwari, aged about 40 Years, r/o. Village - Bhakhra, Thana - Bhakhara,Tahsil - Kurud, Distt.- Ohamtari, ( C.6.) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Office Adarsh Bal Mandir, Near Panjabi Gurudwara Ohamtari, Tahsil and Oistt.- Dhamtan" (C.G.) ^' te^" MEMOfiANDUM OF CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEEDURE CObE. t? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILA8PUR APPLICANT Ciyil ReyisiQnNo.07 pf2011 Premlal Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS : Amrika Bai & Others APPLICANT CiyilRevisionNo. 08 of2011 PremlaTSahu Versns RESPONDENTS : Amrika Bai & Others APPLICANT Ciyil Revision No.09of2011 Premlal Sahu Versus RESPQNDENTS : Smt. Maheshwari & Others APPLICANT Civil Revision No, 10 of2011 Premlal Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS : Ku. Namrata & Others CP/JL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal. J.) Present : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the applicant. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 21.01.2011) 1. By tiiis common order, Civil Revision Nos. 07/11, 08/11,09/11 and 10n 1 ate being disposed ofas the common facts & issues are involved in all these revisions and are arise out of same accident. 2. Legality and propriety oforder dated 20.10.2010 passed by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribimal') in claim cases preferred by the claimants/injured persons under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') is under assail in these revisions. 3. As per claimants' versiomn all the claim cases, on 26.04.2009, while the claimants were going to Charbhat from Bhakhara to attend mamage ceremony by Jeep bearing registration No. CG- 04-ZD-0960, tiie said Jeep tumed turtle near village Paraswani, as a result of which the claimants sustained multiple injuries in the said accident. 4. The claimants in all the cases preferred claim petitions elaiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the said accident against the driver, owner and insurance eompmiy ofthe vehicle in question. 5. The Tribunal, on a close scrotiny ofthe evidenee led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held owner/appellant liable for payment of comp^nsation to the . "inj'ured claimants exonerating the respondent No.S/insurance company oa the ground that the injured claimants were sitting in the Jeep as gratuitous passengers and awarded Rs. 6861/-, 6429/-, 5955/- & Rs. 9751/- respectively in favour of claimants along with interest @ 6 percent from the date of application till its payment. ^^s, j 1 \^y •"J 6. Shri Sunil Sabu, learaed counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the vehicle was insured and despite that the Tribunal has erred in fastening Uability upon the appellanVowBer ofthe Jeep. He would further submit tjiat award ofcompensation is shockingly on higher side which deserves to be suitably reduced. 7. I have heard the counsel<ppearing fbr the applieant and perused the order impugned. : 8. It is not disputed by Stui Sahu that the policy issued by the insurance company/respondent No. 3 was act only p&licy. It is also not in dispute that fhe injured claimants (15 persons including children) were sitting in the said Jeep as giatuitous passengers and fhey were going to attend marriage ceremony. Therefore, in yiew of above fects, it is crystal clear that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in exonerating the insurance company/respondent No. 3 from its liability to pay compensation to the injured claimanls as the insurance company eannot held liable in any such cases where the elaimants are gratuitous passenger. 9. • The Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Company Limited -y- Asha Ram and Ors, reported in 2002 AIR SCW 5259, has held that for passengers traveling in goods vehicle, the insurance company would have no liability therefor. This position was ;farther highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . in Oriental Injsurance Co. Ltd. -v- Devireddy Konda Reddy r- ..-^' /c. !\~^^' 4 and ors. Reported in 2003(2) SCC 339, Narionai Insurance Co. Ltd. -v- Ajit Kumar and otiiers reported in 2003(9) SCC 668, National Insurance Co. Ltd. —v-Baljit Kaur and Others reported in 2004(2) SCC l)and Nattonal Insurance Co. Ltd. v- Bomnrithi Subbhayamma and others reported.in 2005(12) SCC 243. 10. The same decision was reiterated by Ae Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent judgments in National Insurance Company -v- Laxminarayan Dhut reported in 2007(3) SCC 700, wherein it has been held that the decision in Swaran Sin^i's case (supra) has no application to cases other than the third party. Therefore, the statutory provisions contained in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 do not enjoin anystatutory liability to cover the risk ofgratuitous passengers. 11. Therefore, in the facts and cireumstances ofthe case, I have no hesitation to hold that the Insurmice Company cannot be held liable for payment ofcompensation to the injured claimants. 12. So far as quantum of compensation is concemed, the Tribunal has awarded less than 10,000/- to each ofthe mjured claimant -which cannot be said to be on higher side. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find aay substence in the revisions. The revisjons fails and areaceordingly dismissed. No oryer as to costs. Sd'- N.K.Agarwa! Judce Sahu