IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.) \. M.A.(C) No. „„.^. OF 20' TY'T" {APPEAL VALUED AT Rs.4,62^0007-1 APPEAUII^DER^SECIIQN 173 OF THE MOTORVEmCLESACT.l98S. APPELANT: (NON-APPLICANTN0.3) .,--'• Branch managerUnited India insurance Co -. Ltd- ., Shahdol ^ Tlirougli -: 11^ BrancJ^ Majaager-, united India In-sur-ajice Co-Ijtd.^ Rajendra JSTagar Cl-iowJc, Bllaspur (CG) . VERSUS RESPONDENTS fAPPUCANT_NO.U.- L Ganpatiya Ba± W/o-Late P-atiSlngli^ aged-3 O ye-ar-s^ (ApLICANTNO^) Z ^APPLICANTNO.3) 3. VijAy Slngli S/0- Zjate Patl Singli^ aged -about-12 year-s AnarJcall D/o-Late Pati Slngli^aged -a±)out-10 ye-arjs \^ ^.. (APPLICANTN0.4) 4. Ramkunwar S/o-Late Pat± SlngJa^aged about-3 year-s-, (APPLICANTNO-5) 5. 2:":;Jg&S5&^ P^^'.^c^.A.^.---" ^:^^-"1"1 Fo^ ^^v Chulll Bal W/o-Khamola SingJh^aged about-50 ye-ar-s-, Respondent no<2 to 4 are minor, through their m.ot.her- (.Natural Guardi.an) Ganpatia Bai(Respondent no.l) All are -R/0-Vllla.ge-Tal.i., P. S -. -Ama rkant a k, Di stt.- Anuppu-r (JVI-.P. ) At Present- ChlrLgra^Para, Bilaspur^ Tah. & Dlstt. - Bllaspur (C.G<) 1 ^(NON-APPUCANT-NO 1 ). 6. MaJchan Slngli 5/o-Kunwar Singli Gond, Aged About-26 < Years,R/0-Kumh.arpara^P.S<- Amarkantak^ Distt<- *\ . Armupapur (MP) . .<NON-APPLICANINO-4) 7. Ramsingh S/o-Pauku Singh, Aged ,- Al?put years.,, R/0 - ViUage- Bhadiarkala, ~Tah- RajenA^agram, Bistt -Anuppur (MP) MIGM CSOIIRT Cffi rSIIHATTIftftASMI ATWILA&PIIR MI8C. APPBAL (Cl N0. 847 OP 3007 APPBLLAKT/ HON-APPUC^HT N0.3. Tbe Braucdi Mwia^^ IJxiiUxl Tndia Insiiirance Co. Ltjd. Ve»»u» RBSPONDEaiTS : Gaapattya Bai and ath^ra, U/S 173 OF THB MOTOR VBIIICaUB ACt* 1888 (DB: Hoti'ble Sluri I.M. Ouddiwi & Hon*ble Stei G. MinhaludAn. JJ.1 Present : Shri D^hrath. Qupta, counsel for fhe appeBant. ORALORDBR (Pasaed on 27th day ofAugut.2011) Per I*M. Quddiisi, J. This appeal has been fited by the appellaot/Iiiaiuajace Compaisy ^aiaat the ijoipugiied award dated 26-02-2007 passed by fhe Niath Additioaal Motor Accideat Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.), Bilaspur (for short 'fhe Claims Trlbuoal^ iai Clalm Case No.74/2005 by wfaich fhe appeBaiit/Ijasui'aiic^ .Coiiijpany tias beea directed to pay coi3aipeBsation to fhe claimaiits aad recover tihe same fipom ite owiier, 2. Respondent No. 7 proceededex-parte in the Goi.uf below aiid fhe order faistexung fhe liablLity liltuxiatety to compeasatioa was fixed upon fhe owxier of fhe vehjfcle frractort-trolley) by the Claims TrJbiiaal, Howeirer, tt has tjw&ea directed by learaed Trlbuaal fliat at fhe first msteiaee fhe amount of compensation stiaU be paid by ffae appeBant/Iiisuiaace Compaoy aad thereafter, it shall itscover the same from the non-applicaat No.7 (owiier). 3. Brief &icts of fhe case are that oa 17-12-2002, deceased Pati Siiigh WSLS sittbag oa fhe traotor-troUey beajio^ registna^^ No. M.P. 18-D/Q204 aad trolley beariug registratiioai No. M.P. 18/6931, which was beiag dilyea by respoiideiat Na,6. Near JIiagTakhand Bus staod tfoe said Tractor-tpoltey raa m to a pit on account of xash aad negligent driviag of l3xe driver aad !^ ttereby the deceased fell doroa fxwxi the ^efai^ (T^aotoi^tix)!^^ and came iiader fbe wtieete of fhe teactor resulfe^i ia hja deafh, 4. The claimants beiag legal heirs offhe deceased> preferwd aii appUcatioii befbre tilie Cteims Tdbiiiial ujader Sectkxa 166 of the Motor Veliidtes Act (for sliort <the Acf), cliteijag coiiipeiisatioa to ttiie tiiiae ofRs. 12,56,000/- ft>r fhe daatli of ttie deceased, 5. Leanied Tdbuiaal oa a close scrytloy of the evideiice, material placed oa recoxd ajaid aiibmJBaJbas made by fhe partles, has awarded a sum ofRs.4,62,000/- as ccu^ipeasatioa agamst the iion-appUcaiits No, 1 & 2, wfaJteh fbe eteiiEaaiiA^arc entitled to receive joiiiffy aad severaUy atoBg wifh ^lm|de ioterest @ G% per aiijium aad fhe a|)pellteia^to»ajR@^kce^ Compaoy has beea directed ftrat to poy fbe? amoiii^t cdT compensatlon to fhe cladmaate aiid fhen i'ecover it from Ifae owner aad driver offhe Tractor, G, We have heard leaiiicd coiiasel iir tfaC! parttes ^ad also peiTised fhe records of fhe Tribunal. e 7. We have iicrt found aixy law ty^ wtolicM psy aiad j^ccwesr coxrid be oxdered, HoiiT^le tlie Aj^x C<mrt ixi JWafefeanctf Jnsuranc®Co« £<;<!• iw. Suwircin Sinsftt and .fftharss reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 has held tiliat the iiisurance company shall pay and recover in aase of tbird party Instu^ince. The Instant case was not a tMrd party, flierefore, fhe dh^ction to pay aiid recover wotrid not be applicable iti fhe instant case. lii view of the abome facts and circumstaiices ofthe case, the appeUant is ^xoaaerated from its liabUity to pay compensation. The appeal te aUowed. < •^ 8. It wUl'^be open for the claimants to reaUze fhe amount of compensation dlreetty trom tihe owfier-driver of the vehlele as fhe Tribiinal has already festea^i fhe Uability upon ttie owner and driverjouitly and severally. 'T Kw @ 9. The amoiint which has already beeii depc^ited sliflU be alknved to be wltfadraivn by 4feue appeUant/Insurance Company. 10. No ordef_astg^)sts. ^l-..^ \ l^Quddusi ^ Judge \ Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ial,.^