IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)NO.- 7Lio/2oii (D.B.) Oivision Bencl AEPELLANT ~7~ ^RANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMt>ANY LIMITED, MAIN ROAD JAGDALPUR, DISTRICT - BASTAR (BASTAR) Vrs. RfiSPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:- 1., SMT. KAMLI RAWAT W/0 LATE SOMARU, AGEABOUT40YEARS. t< SMT. SUBTI W/0 LATE HARILAL RAO, AGE ABOUT 20 YEAR^. ^ /"^ KU. REETIKA D/0 LATE HARILAL RAWAT, AGE ABOUT l12 YEARS. »- KU. HEETESHWARI D/0 LATE SOMARU, AGE ABOUT 18 YEARS. RESPONDENT N0. 3, THROUGH MOTHER SMT. SUBTI ALL RESIDENT NAIKGUDAPARA, BASTAR, DISTRICT BASTAR (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS :- ^"^ ^%< 9^'-" ^- "'^' ^^•\ 6,. .^ ^- RAMNATH BAGHEL S/0 BALSINGH BAGHEL, AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION DRIVER, RESIDENT ALWAI POST GHOTIA, THANA - LOHANDIGUDA, DISTRICT - BASTAR (C.G.) GOVIND SINGH THAKUR S/0 A.L. THAKUR (VEHICLE OWNER) RESIDENT NAIKGUDA PARA, BASTAR, (C.G.) GOPAL PANDEY ADDRESS GORAKHNATH PANDEY, RESIDENT BHAISGAON, TEHSIL JAGDALPUR, DISTRICT - BASTAR (C.G.) ..2.. ••A«» ^ APPEALUNDERSECTION 1T3 OFMOTORVEmCLEACT 1988 ^_ -^L,, HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPBAL (C) N0. 740 OF 2011 a^PELL^tT RESPONDBNTS Biauch Maaager, The Oriental Insurance Coinpaay Limited. V^sias Smt, Kaoili Rawat aiid ofhers. APPBAL UNDBR 8BCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLBS ACT.1988 Divisioii Bei&eh: Hoti'ble Shri I.M. Qiiddiisi & Hoa*ble Sh?i O. MissSiatuddia. JJ. Presesit: Shn Sud^Air Agrawal, counsel for fhe appeUaiifc Shri P.K. Tulsiyaa, counsel for respondent No.6. Nonc for ofhcr rcspondcnte. OR&LORDBR (Passed on 18th day ofNovember, 2011) Per I.M* Qiiddiisi.^L This appeal haa beea filed by the appeIlaiit/Oriental Insuraace CoiiaLpao.y agaiast fhe impugned award dated 25-03- 2011 passed by the Tliird Additioaal Motor AccMent Clainia Tribunal, Jagdalpiu' ia Clalixi Case No.20/2009, m so far as it relates to fastemiig tlie liabllity upoii the appellaiit/Iiisuraace Cofiipaiiy to pay tlie amount of coiiipeiisation to the claiixiaiite. 2- Brief facts of the case are that 011 22-04-2008 dec-eased Hai'llal was retui'nmg to Baniyagaon by vehicle Commaader Jeep bearing registration No. C,G. 17-ZT/0152. On tiie way near Sonniuda Talab due to rash aad xiegUgent diiviag by aon- applicant No.l (Ramnafh Baghel), flie Jeep tui'aed turtite as a result ofwhich Harllal died on tiie spot 3. The claimaats/dependeiite of the deceased filed a claim petition under Sectioii 166 offhe Motor Vehicles Act (for short <the Act, 1988") before the Claims Trlbunal for fhe award of a total compensatiojai ofRs.13,90,000/- for the deafli ofdec-eased, under vadous heads. 4, Learned Clauaas Tribunal, haviag regard to tlie facte situation and the evidence on record, alfhough held tliat fhe offendiiig vehicle was beiag plied ici coiitTaventioii of tihie coiiditions of fhe insuraace policy, yet directed the noii-applicaiit No.4/Insura£ice Coiiaipaay to pay the amoiint of coiBpeiisatioii of Rs,4,74y000/- along wifh iaterest at fhe rate of6% per aiiiiiim. 5. We have heard learned c-ounsel appearing for tlie jMrtiea aiid pemsed fhe recoids offlie Claims Tribunal, 6. On perusal of the papers 011 i'ecord, it is evideat fliat flie Insurajiee policy was flie "Liability Oiily Policy for Zoiie B Private CarCT, It was not a coiiaipreheiisive policy but orily aii Act policy^ coverliig the tliird party risk aad fhe legal liability of the ctriver, It has been speciGcaUy meixtioaed iii fhe Aasuraooe poMcy tfaat aNO OWN DAMAGE CLAIM WILL BE ENTERTAINED IN THIS POLICY^. It is well setfled tiiat aa occupaiit offhLe vehicie caiitiot conie tiader the category of fbiird party'. Indisputably, at ffafce relevaiit point of time the deceased was not fhe driver of fhe offendiDLg vehicle but he was aci wxupaat and thus he was not covered uiider fhe policy. 7. The passengers of the vehfcte, except tlie drh^er, werc not covered under fhe polky. It was a third party iiisuraiwe wifli risk via a vis covered fbr onty the driver. EarUer ia the ease cdT N€WJfidia Asmwmnce C^mpwzy ^s. Sesfpcd Singh a»&dotlier^ reported in (2000) 1 SCC 237, it was held that under the uew Act aa Misuraiice policy covering t1~i Jrd party risk ia not required to exctude gratuitous passengers m a vehicle, sio matter that ttie vehicle is of any lype or ciass. But this view has» been subsequently over-ruled lii the decisioa m the case of jyeii? JfidHa ABSwrcxncc Co^ IAA i^s^ Asha jRani €OTd otfe^r^ f^ported MI (2003) 2 SCC 223, wherem Hon'ble the Apex Couit held as under: "25. Section 147 of the 1988 Act, iiiter alia, prescribes cojaaipulsory coverage agaiast fhe deafh of or bodily iojuiy to aay passenger of "public service vehiclew, Proviso appeiided tiiereto categorically atates fliat coBipulsoiy coverage ia respect of drivera ajad conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried ia a goods vehicle would be limited to flie ^ t-l^ ^ '^' liabllity iiader the WorkineM's Coxiipeiisatioii Aot, It does not speak ofaay passenger ia a ^goods caiTlage". 26, In view offhe chaages in fhe relevaat provision^ in fhe 1988 Act vis-a-vls fhe 1939 Act, we are of the opmion fhat the meaamg of the words "aixy pei^oa^ jQOiust also be attributed haviiig regard to fhe coatext m which tiiey have been used ie. "a third paily". Keepiiig iti view flie provisions of fhe 1988 Act^ we are of fhc opmion ftiat as fhe provisions fhereof do aot enjoiii aiiy statutoiy liablllty oa fhe owner ofa vehicle to get his vehicle iasured for aoy passeiiger traveUing iii a goods vehicle, fhe iiisurers would aot be liatole fherefor. 27, Fiu-tliermore, sub-claiise (i) ofelause (b) ofsub- sectk)ii (1) of Sectk>a 147 speaks of liablMty wNch may be iaczuTed by the owner of a vehicle ia respect of death of or bodlly iojujy to any person oe dams^e to aay property of a tihird parly caused by or arislag out of the use of fhe vehlcle in a public place, wliereas sub-clause (ii) fhereof deals witli liabllity which may be mcurred by fhe owner of a vehlole agaiast the death of or bodlly injuiy to aay passeiiger of a pubUc service vehiele caused by or arisiag out of tfae use of fhe velucle in a public place. 28. An owner of a passeiiger-canyliig veluole muat pay preixiiuiioi for coveriag the risks of the passengers- If a liabllity other fhan fhe Umited liabilMy pMwlded fo^ under fhe Act is to be enljtanced under aii liisiAjrance pollcy, additioiial premium is required to be pald. But if fhe ratio of tiliis Court>s decision iii New If^Ma Assufwzce Co. Vs. Satpal Sifigh is taken to its logical coiichisioji, although for such passengers, llie owner of a goods cairiage aeed not take out aa iiisiiraoce policy, they would be deeiaed to have been covered under fhe policy wherefor .even 110 pA^emiiMa is required to be paid." ^-^^- /•^^ "T :;:f A '^ ' i ^ 'l"^';-^?^^^ ^2 ^-^^1, I ''^:^ ^.^^ ^3 \ - 8, Iii fect, uixder tfae Motor VehMes Act, 1988 fhere JB a coiapiitsoiy llabiLhy imposed upoii the IiiBurance Coiiipaoy ander Section 147 read with Sectioa 149 offheAot, 1988 and, fherefore, if fhe coiapreheasive pollcy has been takeii^ it is fhe policy ixader fhe contract beyond the statutoiy liabilfcty aiid flrus ttxe burdea lies upon fhe msurers to satisfy fhe judgmeiite and as^ards ia regard to fbie person who clainis fhe benefit of fhe coiitract beyond fhe statutoiy Uability. la fhe instaiit case^ fhe policy which is available oa record is oaly aii Act poUcy. The claimants have not produced aoy docuiaent by which the Claiiiis Tribiinal or this Court caa draw an iafereace that fhe policy was a coiitract beyond ftie statutoiy llabillty* In abseac'e of fhe same, it caiinot be said fliat fhe Insuraace Company woiild be liable evea if fhe poUcy was only aa Act poUcy aad not beyoixd the saikie, After seeiag that fhere was no proposal of (he saM claim fhat it wa^ beyond fhe statutoiy Uablllty, fhe Ijiauraiice Compaoy caaaot be held Uable if iri fhe accMent, tiie ocoupaat of fhe motor velucle died, An occupant of a private vehicle i.e, fhe offendLaig vehicle caiiaot conie under fhe eategoiy of 'fhird party'. A pollcy ixi terms of Sectioa 147 of fhe Act, 1988 1s not iiitended to eover peraoaB ofher fhaa fhird parties. 9, The above qiioted decision iti JNfew Jm3ia Assi&r«me<e Gi»» Ltd» ^s. Asfaa JRani and ffthers (supra) haa beeii relted on Aa Ofienta.1 Jnsurance C^ Lt^L vs. Meena VeiflyaS. and efifeeys,' neported in (2007) 5 SCC 428, wherein, Hontile fhe Apex Court m para 22 has held as under: "22. .<•.,..........Thus, aoy conteact ofiixsurauaice lyider Chapter XI of the Motor Vehlcles Act, 1988 coAiteiaplates a thlrd party who is iiot a sigiiatoiy or a party to the contra.et of iasui'aQ.ce but is, nevertheless, protected by siich coiitTact» TfaM this was tbe object was reiterated iaNew tndteL Assiiraiice Co. v. Kaaadla whereia it was stated tliat the raisoa d>etre for flie legislature inakiag it prohibitoAy for laotor vehicles beiiig used ia publlc places wifhout covering fhird-party risks by a policy of taswraTAce is to protect fhe ixiembers of fhe commuiiity who 'y^ '•, 'A^ '' •\ ^3./ '^^y becoiiie suffereA's 011 account of aecideiits ariaiag fix>iu fhe use of niotor vehicles. The object of Chapter XI has fhus always been recogni^ed as oiie iateaded to protect fhbd parties as uaderstood ia fhe coiitext ofthe Act unless ofcourse there is a special contract ia respect ofprotectEou to ofhersw. 10. In vlew ^f^the above legal positbii, Aa the facte aixd cisxiumstaiices of the ease 0x1 hand io. wliich the deceased was sitfcing iii fhe ofiending vehicle as gratuitous passenger which is aot covered under tiie iasuratice policy, flie lusui^iice Goixipaay caimot be held Uable for paymeiit of compensatioa. Therefore, we aA^e of tlie coiisidered opiiiioja fhat in tiie caB€ on hand fhe appeUaiit/Insuraiice Coiiipany could not ha¥ebeeji held liable to pay flie aoioiuit of coiiipeiisation, partlcularty whea learned Tribiuial has held fhat fhe offeiidiiig vehicle was beliig plied in violatlon oftiie conditions oftiie msuraace pollcy. 11. Resultaatly, fhe appeal is allovred^ Diodifying the luipugiied award dated 25-03-2011 to fhe extent fhat fhie noa-appllcaiit No,4/Insiu'aace Company is exonerated from ite Uabitity to pay fhe aoiount ofcoinpensatton awarded by fhe Clamis Tribunal, 12. If the aoiount of compensatioii has ali'eady been paid or disbursed to fhe clalmaiits, the Iiisuiance Compaiiy may recover fhe same from fhe owuer aad driver of fhe vehjfcle jointfy or severaUy. However^ in case ffae amount of compensatioia. has not been paid, fhe claimarits niay claioi tiie ajaiount of oompensatlon, awarded by flie Cladms Tribunal froia the ow^ier aad driver, jointiy or severaUy. 13. No order as to c-oste. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Kvr