^ ^ C-r ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH M.A.C.NoJ43^'/2009 APPELLANT :- ^National Insurance Company /^Insurer) Limited Kosabadi Karba Tehsil 8s >^JA ^^ District Karba (C.G) Trough: ..••'•f.'.e^--' .^""i^^^^^ Authorised Signatory National 1^^ '^ ^^'^" Insurance Corapany Liinited, Divisional Office: Bl Taha Complex, Ring Road II, Priydarshani Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G). VERSUS RESPONDENTS:- 1. Harmit Singh Bhatia S/o Late (Claimant) ' y\^ Harvansh Singh Bhatia, aged bout 34 yearrs R/o Shivaji Nagar Korba Tehsil & District Korba (C. G). (Driver) 8. Khageshwar S/o Motichand Gand aged about 22 years, R/o Imaliduggu Near Railway Station Korba Tehsil & District Korba (C.G). (Owner) ^3. Imanwel Eappen S/o K. P. Eappen ) R/o I.T.I. Rampur House No.742, Korba Tehsil 85 District Korba (C.G). ^' APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 ^" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH, BILASPUR DB: HON'BLB I.M. QUDDUSI S& HON'BLB PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ, M. A.(C| No. 143S OP 2009 Vs. ^ MISCELLANBOUS APPBAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,1988 APPEARANCB Mr. B. N. Naade, counsel for fhe appellant. Mr. K. Kalamkar, counsel for respondent no. 1. ORDER (ORAL1 (13.01.2011) Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurmice Compaay against tlie award dated 08.05.2009 passed by the II Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribuual Korba (C.G) ia ClaLm Case No.32/2007 on the ground that the UabiMty has been fastened on the Insuraiice Coinpaay. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of the claimaat are that on 03.06.2006 at about 4.30 p.m., the iajured Harmit Siagh was brmgiag fhe coal by Truck bearuig Regn.No. C.G. 12-C/1876. The said Tmck had to reach Balco Plaat; Korba. On fhe way near Sirda Bridge, tlie said vehicle which was beiag driven by respondent no.l ia rash aad negligent niaaner tumed turtie, as a result of which, the right haad shoulder of the respondent no. 1 has been fractured aad he also siistaiaed serious iajuries on fhe left APPELLANT National Insurance Conipany Limited RBSPONDBNTS Harmit Siagh aad ofhers ^^) 3. 4. hand aad wrist. The veia of the left haad has been cut. His left liaad has been shortened comiparing to fhe right hand, AU the fingers of fhe left haad are not functioniag. After fhe accident, he was iairaediately adiaitted to B.D.M. Hospital, Champa where he was priiaarily treated. Thereafter, he was adiaitted ia a private hospital of Dr. Surjit Sio.gh where aa operation was conducted on his left haad aad a rod was iaserted. Agam fhe rod was reinoved by Dr. Chaadaai aad a plate was fixed aad graphiting was also done by removmg some bone fi'oin his waist Thus, the claimaat had undergone surgeries many tiraes and tlius he was put to pain and suffering, It is alleged fhat due fhe said accident, he was also put to permaiient disabUity to the extent of48%. At the tinie of accident, he was aged about 34 years an.d was workmg ixi a private Compaay eaniiag Rs,6000/- per month. He has filed claun appUcation to the tune of Rs. 11,95,000/- ou vanous heads. The learaed clamis Tribunal held that ttie ofiendmg vehicle which belonged to respondent no,3 has laetwitli aa accident m which respondent no.l has sustained grievous mjuries aad tiie accident has occurred due to rash and negligent drivmg of respondent no,2. It has further held fhat it is not proved that fhere are breach of poUcy conditions regardiag driviag Ucense and peraiit. In the statement of the injured claimaat, he stated fhat he was a super^isor ia Umesh Gupta & Electdcals aad on fhe instructions of his employer, he had gone to Raigarh from Korba m the offendiag vehicle for brmgiag coal to fhe Balco 6. Plaat. In his cross examiaation, Iie has further stated fhat his einployer was not a coal contactor. He has agam stated that exactiy he do not kaow as to whefher or not his eniployer was dealiug ia coal contracts. He has furtlier adniitted that he got loaded the coal ia tlie offendiag Truck ia vUlage Bai'od, Distt. Raigarh. He has purchased tiie coal from Barod coal washer aad got a receipt. We have perused fhe iasuraace PoHcy. The risk of fhe occupaat is not covered under fhe poUcy aad only fhe risk of two eniployees is covered. Undoubtedly, fhe iiyured claimaiit was not aa employee ia fhe offendmg vehicle, tlierefore, the insurance Coinpaay is not liable to pay conipensation. In view of the above, we allow fhis appeal and set aside fhe part of Uie impugned award by which fhe Insuraace Coiapaay has been held liable to pay fhe amount of coiapensation. However we have not considered fhe quantuni as fhere is no need to consider fhe same aad fhe appeal has been filed only 011 fhe ground offasteniag Uability on the iasuraace Compaay. However, the claimaat may claiia fhe amount of coinpensation froia fhe owner of fhe vehicle. If fhe amount has already been deposited, tb.e saine shall be allowed to be witiidrawn by fhe Insuraace Company, but if tlie same has been disbursed to tfae claimaiit it wUl be open for fhe Insuraace Coinpaay to recover fhe same froin flie owner offhe vehicle. Rao Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge