tr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHFIATTIS(;AM1 MISELLANEOCS APPEAL (C) N0. - I 5. 5~t OF 2010 .%3.»,?< ;-, S'i.-.n ^, (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) '^ '..<? ii ?• APPELLANTS il.nA!^ ^S?!^2- ^":^^..-"' "^.^. 0. o^. ..^A' ! RESPONDENTS y» ^^ L^Ay 1. Ramesh Sahu S/o Maniram Sahu, aged abou1 32 years, R/o-Village -Ramkona, I'.O & Pol ice Station- Sarsiwan, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, )3isl;ricl. - Raipur (C.G.) (Non-applicant No. 1) [DriverofvehicleJeepbearing registration No. C.G. l^/ZK/0124] Maniram Sahu, S/o Bhagirathi Sahu, ajied about 52 years, R/o - Ramkona, P.0 & Police Station- Sarsiwan, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) (Non-applicantNo. 2) [Registered owner of vehicle Jeep bearing registration No. \'\G. 12/ZK/0124] VERSUS 1. Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/oAghorilal Sahu, agi'd about 25 years, 2. Rajani Kumari Sahu D/o Aghorilal Sahu ajiecl about 28 years, (1 & 2 are Claimants) Both R/o - Sarswati Nagar (Near Rail\i'Eiy Crossing), Raipur, Police Station- Amanaka, District-Raipur.(C.G.) 3. The United India Insurance Compaiiy Litd, Through, Divisional Manager,(Divisioiii:i.l) Divisional Office, The United India [nsurance Company Ltd., Kutcheiy Chowk, Raipur, Talisil & District - Raipur ( C.G.) (Non-applicant No. I) [Insurer ofvehicle Jeep bearin^ registration No. C.O. 1 ?/ZK/0 [^ 4J •^^kbAl' <C°Jt <— 4. ^.ghoriap sahu s/o Manu Sahu,R/o-Villagt; - Parsada, P.O.-Pousara Police Station ~ R.atanpur, District- Bilaspur ( C.G.) (Non-applicanl No. 4) Aj:>i)eal Valy^at^ Rs, i^XLOOO/- i^'^y 0>' MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHEMOT()RVEIUCt!';S ACTJM8 '••.; ya v-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANTS M.A.rc)No. 1256 of2010 Ramesh Sahu & another VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Rajesh Kumar Sahu & olfaers APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Aaarwal Present : Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for the appellaats. ORALORDER (Passed on 11.03.2011) Heard on IA No. 1, application for condonation ofdelay in filing the appeal. 1. On due consideration, I am satisfied that the counsel for appellants is succeeded in explainmg the delay caused in filing this appeal. Accordingly IA No. 1 is allowed and delay caused in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Also heard on admission. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by Ifae appellants against the award dated 30.01.2010, passed by the IInd Additioaal ' Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No, 92/09, whereby and whereunder an •amount ofRs. 1,00,000/- has been awarded as compensation in favour ofthe claimants and as against the appellants/driver & owner exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. 3, Brief facts of the case according to the appellants are that, on 04.1 !, J. Bethmen (since -deceased) was traveling in Jeep 1 ^t~ VsSS; x?^^.-':. 'k<^aE3£»s in m bearing registration No, CG-12-ZK-0124, thesaid vehicle tiimed turtle, as a result of which she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 4. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence led, material placed and submissions made, held : claimants are entitled for Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation payable by the appellants i.e. driver & owner of vehicle in question, exonerated the insurance company on the ground that deceased being occupant of the private care insured under the liability only policy cannot be held liable for payment ofcompensation. 5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the appellants, perosed the order impugned and records oftribunal. 6. A bare perusal ofphotocopy ofthe policy available on the record oftribunal, it is clear that policy issued is liabilily only policy. Under liability only policy, the insurance company is not required to cover the risk of occupant of the private car and therefore, tUe tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 7. No other points have been raised. 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, th®appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu