w^" -78 3^T '^wi'yi-tf, ^•rflwi's, Ri^i^y Z6 MIMdl *MI<*>^••--^•^•"-^"•-^•<-^200^ an^?T'^siw (1pf^?ff) •sn^r^n 'f<^i°h •OTI 31^1 ipfc / f'.- NON-APPLICANT No. 3 iWl 3 04.05.2007 Shri H.B. Agrawal, counsel for the appeUant. Shri A.K.Gupta, coijjisel for respondent No.3. Heard. *l<li<'l41-t 'il4d!'?.ft%t tfal^K. ^ aifinsii^i M/s. Uuited India Insuraa.ee Co. Ltd. , Through Braach Manager, Budhai- Road, Shalidol (M.P.) Makliaii Prasad, son. of Shri Lalloram, aged 44 years, resident of QuarterNo. D-233, M.P.B. Colony, Chachai, Taltsil Aauppur, District Shahdol(M.P.) NtrmalKum.ar Tripathi, sonofVinay Kuinar Tipafhi, aged 40 years, Occupatiou-Driver, resident of Madhavgarh, P.S. Kodganwa, Dista-ict Sataa (M.P.), Present resident of Dhaiipuri, No.3 Colliery, Amalai, District Shahdol (M.P.) Ajay Gupta, Son of D\varka Prasad Gupta, resident of Cineiaa Road, Budhar, TalLsfl. Budhar, District Shalidol (M.P.) -APPLICANT N0.1 8s 2 Sr. Advocate wifh Shri Paiikaj Agrawal, S^^SSSS-'Shss., •;•»• J—78 ..-•';'y 3:c:cT ?qT2TRRT, axfly'is, RjtfK-fy of) 'nra^iT **<!* .^..C^M.j........^ ^^ aii^r 'fsaK (i^i-i«<<tT) sn^aw R-ii.'t] ^V 3TR?T sti+llcti ^ •1&- ^grer^iteiCT^i .2-- This is in.surers appeal Septem.ber 2004 passed by fhe Tribujial, Manen.dragarh in Cl sum of Rs. 60,729/- with inte: from fhe date of application claim.aiit/respondent No.l for 26.04.98 when Matador 407 driveu rashly aiid iiegligently b respondeut No.3, overturued. lagainst fhe award dated 30dl of lAdditional Motor Accident Clamis t^im Case No.40/2000 whereby a \est at fh-e rate of 9% per annuia hfes been awarded ia favour of tlie pie iujuries sustained by Tmn on be^riiig 1-egistrati.on No. MP-18/6345 respondent No. 2 aad owned by Howdver The only ground argued Uiat the offeiiding vehicle is a| driver plus one cleaner and the vehicle as a gratuitous passens of policy coudition. The fact fhaj a baraii, was admitted by flie oatti before the Tribuiial. objection of the appeUaat in. tlli^ the oaus of proviag that fhe vel( fhe policy condition. is upon thej Insuraiice CoDipany has not same, it caiuiot be held fhat| passenger in. fhe said vehicle. Leanied counsel for the il passenger travels ia. a goods leti =n]«ll<'l4liingf i[\fe%t <[a|t^l< '^sifgqsiit?! )y fhe counsel for the appeUaut is ioods camer vehicle insured for ;laim.ant was traveUiag in. th.e said Sr a^plicaut at the tune of accident m. breach fc he was traveltag in the vehicle as hinisetf in his stateinent on tlie Trib'mial has rejected the regard by recordiag a fiadiug tih.at licle was beiag used ia violation of Insuraace Coinpany asd sin.ee the aav evidence to substaatiate the tiie claiinaiit was flie gratuitous spondent subiaitted fh.at where a rier as a passenger, he does so ia caln-ier r K' K 3^? "MI<11<?»*1, WTn^'liS, Rl(?il*<y -s> NINdl *t<|cb .iy^.:...A,....!M. 9iI^?T 13R; (1i?f3g??r) WI, 200-5- SII^I.qiT R-li'b WIT 3IR?T 'jtillcb :,/' ll"^:. aW bis own risk aad if he suffers ^uch vehicle the owner or dnv ^esponsibility of payiug aay aiB t)erson. ?B!IW^lfTO3II^T -%. setftled The law iu this regard is s registered as a goods vehicle in| >aid accident if a gratuitous passj ;aiinot be held Uable for pay: 'laimnnt. For this view, I am forti|G.ed Ifl. gtheys reported in 3003 Pol. 1 21 The clainiant was Plaiit plectricity Board, Chechai aad h^ 1/ehicle as he had to go to Maaent Froni his statenient before the fcvidence available on record that ^aid vehicle along with. his goot tuidiag of Uie Tribun.al that the II Ijrove-tiiat the claiaiant was gt tvith.out consideruia ftie adniissioit. In the result tlie appeal is- |iiodi&ed and fhe appellant^ ;om.pan.y, which: has been. Iifeld'-'fi^ qiN^^li *il+itrff^f f^^ <Pn<^i< ^aTfipTSII^T Iv loss due to accident tD.volvin.s sr caiuiot be saddled with fhe ount of coinpensation to such fhatwhere the vehicle which yolved hi the accident aad hi tlie ;nger suffers hijuries the hisurer iig such' compensation to fhe by the judgmeut of Oriental Assistant in fhe M.P. State was ta:aveUng ia a goods carrier [dragarh ia a Barat as is evident Tfibuual. There is uo pleadiag or the claiaiant was traveUitig iii tlie tls, In these circum.staiices the |D.suraace Conipaay has failed to t'ataitous passenger is pei-verse of the clamiant hunself. |allowed. The mipugned award is ' jion-applicaxit No.3 Insurance |.ble ;'f0r payment of coiiipensation GRPRJ s- FS/246— 2/2007 — 50,UOO. <] Bl t« <:.^XI-He—78 'S^ •^Mw<f, •a^wiis,, ^vftwy, '29 ^^^^..................riAA......^...^ an^?r 1tRR; (*y(l«i<tw) ^ 3fl^[ ?il Ri-<i°h ?^iT 3?i^r ^Ri^r wiro 1Hi?g 3ii^i —<<- Si, joiiitly and severaUy, is payinent pf coiiipen.sation.! Insurance Company in. Iiisurance Cpmpanx; .shall respoudents No. 2 & 3. heijebv absolved from the UabUity of fhe If aiiy paynient is niade by the pui^uauce 'oT fhe impugiied award, fhen be -enti.fled to recover the sanie from. 'iiiild'il'i Twrcff Tf.'!sIA <[<itt;it Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge fc^ \l^~ 1)3