APPELLANTS ehicle Owner) f^^ iw7*^ AttaiM COnURT &F CHHXTTIiSGARH AT BILASPUR > ^sy^ .,rt* P ••"' ». \.P'5 >v M.A fC).No.^O/2009 Santosh Kumar Sahu Son of Jaichand Sahu, aged about 22 years, Caste Teli, R/o. Village Charbhatha, P.S. &Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2..' Latel Ram Chakradhari, Son of Manbodhi Ram Chakradhari, aged about85 years, R/o.Village Charbhatha, P.S. &Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) RESPONDENTS ICIaimant) ^ (Insurer) VERSUS Laxman Sahu, Son of Shanker Lal Sahu, aged about 32 years, R/o.Village Charbhata,P.S. & Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Near Adarsh Bal Mandire, Dhamtari, Tahsiland District Dhamtari (C.G.), APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORS VEHICHLEACT, 1988 FOR ENHANCEMENT 2. fv r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice RadheShyam Sharma Miscellaneous Apoeal (C.) No.1222 of 2009 Appellants versus RespOndents Santosh Kumar Sahu and another Ghanshyam Sahu and another Present: Shri D.N.Prajapati, counsel for the appellants. Sliri SudhirAgrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.1. Miscellane9_ys_A£@eaLynderSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 MLscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.1230 of 2009 Appellants versus Respondents Santosh Kumar Sahu and another Laxman Sahu and another Present: Shri D.N.Prajapati, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.1. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ORAL ORDER (Passedon 25th July, 2011) , Since Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.1222 of 2009 and Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No. 1230 of 2009 arise out of a common awgrd and relate to one and same accident, therefore, both the ";"~te.\ ^y ^ "V- -. •''; .^ ./ ''''^.^^s^'' -J^'- appeals are heard together and being decided by this common order. 2. By the instant appeals, the driver and the owner of the tractor and trolley seek exoneration from liability to pay compensation fastened by common award dated 10-7-2009 passed by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in Claim Cases No.31/2008 and 34/2008. 3. Case of the claimants, as stated in their claim petitions, is that on the date of accident, i.e., 30-5-2008, the claimants Ghanshyam Sahu and Laxman Sahu, after loading agricultural product in tractor bearing registration No.CG 05 G 0684 and trolley bearing registration No.CG 05 G 0685, were going in the tractor and trolley from Village Charbhata to Khshi Mandi Kwud for the purpose of selling fhe agricultural product loaded in the tractor and trolley. The tractor and trolley was being driven by non-claimant No.1 Santosh Kumar Sahu. On the way, an accident took plac.e on Kurud Megha Road near Mandraud Bagicha due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trolley. In the accident; the claimants sustained grievous injuries on their person. At the time of accident, the tractor and trolley was owned by non-claimant No.2 Latel Ram Chakradhari and was insured with non-claimant No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The accident was reported to Police Station Kurud. The claimant Ghanshyam Sahu preferred a daim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') elaiming compensation of Rs.4,30.000/- and the claimant s Laxman Sahu preferred a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,30,000/-. 4 . The Claims Tribunal allowed both the claim petitions in part and awarded a sum of Rs.1,46,200/- as compensation in favour of claimant Ghanshyam Sahu in Claim Case No.31/2008 and a sum of Rs.31,000/- as compensation in favour of claimant Laxman Sahu in Claim Case No.34/2008 fastening liability to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants on the non-claimants No.1 and 2, i.e., driver and owner of the tractor and trolley, jointly or severally. 5. Shri D.N.Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellants/driver and owner of the tractor and trolley has argued that the claimant Laxman Sahu was not able to prove his permanent disability and the Claims Tribunal has also held thatthe claimant Laxman Sahu did not suffer permanent disability. So far as case of the claimant Ghanshyam Sahu is concerned, he did not suffer 45% permanent disability. Leaned counsel has 'further argued that the Claims Tribunal, ignoring these facts, has wrongly passed the impugned award. He further argued that the tractor and trolley was duly insured with respondent No.2/0riental Insurance Company Limited, therefore, the liability of payment of compensation should have been fastened on the insurance company. Learned counsel has also argued that appellant/the owner of the tractor and trolley did not breach any condition ofthe policy of insurance. 6. ' Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer of the tractor and trolley, supporting the impugned award, has submitted that the award does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned .counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. The Claims Tribunal, in paragraph 17 of the award, has held that the claimant Ghanshyam Sahu suffered permanent disability but the claimant Laxman Sahu did not suffer permanent disability. In paragraph 21 of the award, the Claims Tribunal, after discussing the medical evidence, has disbelieved the evidence of Dr. V.K.Pandey (AW-2), but, in paragraph 27 of the award, it has been held by the Claims Tribunal that the claimant Ghanshyam Sahu suffered 45% permanent disability. 8. I have perused the disability certificate (Ex. P-9) issued by the District Medical Board, Dhamtari iri favour of the claimant Ghanshyam Sahu and the disability certificate (Ex.P-10) issued by the District Medical Board, Dhamtari in favour of the claimant Laxman Sahu and found that Ghanshyam Sahu suffered 45% permanent disability and Laxman Sahu suffered 2.5% permanent disability. 9. Both the claimants have examined themselves as AW-1. They have stated in their examination-in-chief about the injuries sustained by them in the accident and treatment thereof, but, in the cross-examination, the appellants/the driver and the owner of the tractor and trolley did not put any question to them regarding their injuries- or treatment. They did not even question the claimants .-. ..^\...,^.^.i.a.wf-..,sff·isaias.sv, Ss^.^t 1, 5 regarding their income and expenses incurred in treatment of their injuries. Therefore, in the circumstance, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the claimants appears to be just and proper. 10. Perusal of the policy of insurance (Ex.D-4C) makes it clear that the tractor and trolley was insured for agricultural purposes. Ghanshyam Sahu (AW-1) and Laxman Sahu (AW-1) have stated in paragraph 1 that on the fateful day they were going in the tractor and trolley to Kurud Mandi. They were sitting in the trolley in which paddy-bags were loaded. In cross-examination, in paragraph 7, Ghanshyam Sahu (AW-1) has stated that the paddy belonged to the owner of the tractor and trolley Latel Ram and they were carrying the paddy to Mandi for the purpose of selling it. Laxman Sahu (AW-1) has also m'ade similar statement in paragraph 8 in cross- examination. 11. Santosh Kumar Sahu (NAW-1) has stated in paragraph 1 that on the fateful day he was driving the tractor and trolley which was loaded with paddy and he was carrying the paddy in the vehicle to Kurud Mandi. In cross-examination, in paragraph 2, this witness has stated that the paddy, which he was carrying in the tractor and trolley to Mandi. belonged to him. The daimants were sitting in the vehicle as Hammal (labourers) and both were going in the vehicle to unload the paddy in the.Mandi. The claimants were engaged'to work on wages of Rs.4 per paddy-bag. •""?, 12. In the joint written statement filed before the Claims Tribunal, the driver and the owner of the tractor and trolley have stated in paragraph 5 that the paddy belonged to the owner of the tractor and trolley and the driver of the tractor and trolley was carrying the paddy in the vehicle to Khshi Mandi Kurud for the purpose of selling it. 13. From the above, it is evident that paddy-bags were loaded in the tractor and trolley; the paddy belonged to the owner of the tractor and trolley; the paddy was being carried in the tractor and trolley to Krishi Mandi Kurud for the purpose of selling it; the tractor and trolley was being driven by Santosh Kumar Sahu and the claimants were sitting in the tractor and trolley as labourers for the purpose of unloading the paddy-bags in the Krishi Mandl. These evidence go to show that the tractor and trolley was being used in violation of the conditions of the policy of insurance. Therefore, there is no error in non-fastening of liability to pay the compensation on the insurer of the tractor and trolley and fastening the said liability on the owner and the driver of the tractor and trolley. The impugned award is unexceptionable and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 14. In the result, the award under appeal is affrrmed and the instant appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. 15. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connected appeal. Sd/- Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge Ciopal