HIOH COURT OP JUDICATURE CHHAniSGARH: BILASPUR CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI S.R.NAYAK, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI V.K.SHRIVASTAVA, J. Misc Apoeal (C l No.37S of 2006 APPELLANT Ro^il Sundarwn Alliance Insurance Company, Through - The Branch Manger Near New Bus Stand Pandrf Raipur C.G.H.O.Whttes Road, Chennai (Non-Appttcant no.3) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. Smt. Lagni Bai w/o t-ate batram Yadav, sged about 28 yeare, 2. Mohan Yadav s/o Late Balram Yadav age 12 yeare (Minor) 3. Kishanlal s/o Late Baliam Yadav age 3 yeare (Mlnor), Respondent No.1 and 2 throu^i - Mother, Smt.Lagni Bai w/o late Shrt Balram Yadav 4. Budhiyarin Bai w/o late Sonuram Yadav age 55 years All are resident of Village Mehna, Po^ Sambalpur, P.S.Nanadghat District Duig (Clalmants) 5. Suresh Kumar Venma S/o Sarju Prasad Venna, aged about 30 years R/o Vlllage Amora, P.S. u-idghat Tahsil nawagoan, District Duig. (Driver Non apDlteant No.il 6. Udesiram Sahu S/o Khc^wa Sahu, aged abotf 70 years R/o Villtage Mehna, P.0.8ambalpur, P.S.Nandghat District Dutg. (Owner O Non applteant No.2) PRESENT: Shri SS Rajput, counsel for the apRellant, ORAL ORDER ( Passedon 16th November, 2006) The following oral order pf the Court was passedj»yM^sy Kumar Shrivastava, J.: k -•2.- This appeal has been directed ^ainst the award passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara (for shCTt "the Tribunal") on 28.07.2006 in Clalm CaseNo.24 of 2005, whereby, a sum of Rs.3,82,500/- has been awarded to responderts No.1 to 4 -Clainnants against that appellart - Insurance Company with a tfirection that appellant-lnsurance Company if chooses may recover thesaid compensation amount (awad) fronMespondents No. 5 & 6 who are drhrer and owner of the mcttor vehtete Imolwd In the accfclerrt. Facts, in brief, are Uiat on 14.07.2005, Balram Yadav, as a laboiK'er was carried intractor - trolley No. CG - 7D - 2437 & 2438, drwen by re^XMidmt No.S, and owned by respondent No.6, herein. The trartor - trolley met with an aeeidert. Baham Yadav received severe injurles and succumbed to those injuries. The incident took place due to rash and negligent drivlrg of respondent No.5. The legal representatives of deeeased Kilram Yadav ffled an applteatiwi umier Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehtoles Ad, 1988 (for short, "the Act") otaiming CCTTpensatbn of Rs.8,00,000/- against driver, owner and frisurer of the vehtote. The appellant, at the relevant time, was the insurer of the said tractar - troltey. The appellant as well as respondents No.5 & 6 reluted Uie clalm of the claimants. Appellant specially pleaded that for paying compensation the company is not responsible, beeause the vehiote was plted in contravention of permit condition and breaohing the oonditlon of poltey. After appreciatkxi ofthe evidenw, learned Trlbunal held that the tractor - trolley owned by respondent No.6 was driven toy respondent No.S rashly and negligently whioh met with an accident and in fte said aceidert, Balram Yadav received injuries and succumbed to those injuries. Learned Trlbunal v^iite holdlng that there 1s breaoh of conctition of poltoy direeted that driver and owier of the motor vehiole involved in the accKlert are liable to pay compensation, however, dlrected Insurance Company to pay compensatton In the flrst Instance and recover the same from owner and driver of the motor vehiele. Leamed counsel app^artng for the appellant - Insuranee Company would contend that there is no haid and fast rute-that h each and every case of this nature, the Insurance eompany shoufcl be dtrected to pay compensation in the first Instance and recwer ttie same ftom the owner and I" K- Subbu -3. driver of the vehicte involved In the acckjent. Leamed counselwould ptace reliance on the judgment of the Hon'bte Supreme Court in the ease of Nattonal Insurance Co.t.td. Vs V Chlnnamma »idoUiere1. That judgment coufcl be distmgujshed on facts. In that case, it was found that traetoT-troBey was misused to cany passengers on fare, whereas In this case It Is satisfactorily proved thaft the deeeased as a labourer wasgdr^to bring bouldefs In frie tractor-trolley for construdton of drainege In agricultural fteld of vehtele owner. During atgumait no other grounds have been raised. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered oplnion that the Tribunal is justlfied in directing the Insurance Company to pay Gonyensatlon in the first instance and recover the same from owner snd driver ofttievehicte involved in the accident In the clrcumstance, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. sa————~—" "°—i 1 V.K.Shrivastava 1 Judge S(V- 1 .__ .—^ "_——^ Chief Justice | 1