-"a ;1 IN TiIE HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR MISCELLANBOUS'APPEAL N0. G_^^ OF APPELLANT: (Non-applicant No.2) / Sachtrfi-Ianand Badani, son / of Shri Sakharmal Badani, aged about 40 years, resident - of Nayapara, Bhanupratappur, Kanker. vs R^SPONDENTS: (Applicants / Claimants^ -y» /^ A* /^.^ ^ ^* // ^''^' "A' ^ .sff'.^r ^'•^ /l. Smt.Maya Bai, wife of Late Prithvi Raj Dupare, aged about 42 years Aashi Kumar, son of Late Prithvi Raj Dupare, aged about 21 years. f3. Manish Kumar, son of Late Prithvi Raj Dupare, aged about 17 years. V-D. Satish Kumar, ' ' Late Prithvi Raj Dupare, aged about 14 years. Dinesh; Kuraar,"?"' Late Prithvi Raj Dupare, aged about 13 years. ^^ /'' . ^ No.3 to 5 are minors through their natural guardian raother Smt.Maya Bai, wife of Late Prithvi Raj Dupare, resident of <^ Ward- No.27, Ghasidas Ward, Near Railway Ground Sachdeni Bhata, Dalli-Rajhara, ^.r1 > District Durg. Brahina Singh, son of Shri Sakharam, aged about 22 years, resident of Pandipara, P.S. Korar, Tehsil Bhanupratappur, Kanker. . The Oriental Insurance ^ Company Ltd. P.0-51, Malviya Nagar, Durg. V&lu.vii^cr) a's - 16strers/'rtoi»nefc*t-i.^)^4>' ^»»< MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF '-wi^iu.i^ ^ THE MOTOR VBHICLE ACT r\f- -\ \. r\r\r\ A / mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BHASFUR &B: Hon'UeShriPrasiMm*KnmarMiahra Misc. Anneal No. <BS/2005 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS : Sadiduuuuri Badani Versus Smt. Maya Bai & cfliers Aooearance: Sfari M.L. Saket, counsel for tiie arodlait. Shri Punit Ruparel, counsd fiar respondents No.I to 5. Shri P. Dutta, couasel for reqx)ndent No.7. ORALORDER (24.062010) This is OWHCTS appeal under section 173 of Matos VAicles Act, chdlenging tiieaward ofcompet»sati<mofRs.1,99,000/- allowed by tfie Claims Trilwnal in favour ofth®chumants. (2) Leamed counsel for the a^wllairt has iH%ued Itot ti Claans Tribunal has Gommitted a sCTious enOT of law by exoneratiB^ the Insuraiice C<anpany l&om the Uability ofpuymcnt ofcompcnsatMn. (3) He submits that since the dwcased, Prithvi Raj Dupare vws travelmg in 1he trock aloag with goods^ as a reprGsentative ofthe owner oftiie goods, he was eatifled to travel in tfae goods vehicle uid therefore the Insurance Company would be Uable to mdemnifyttfi insured. (4) Learaed counsel fbr Ifae IiKnnatice Company sutMnits ttmt|qace .1.1 it has bwn estabtished thatti»ofifending vAide is a goods vehic^e, a ^ passenger cannot be allowed to travel therein and in no case, the Insuramse Compwiy ean be held liable for dcath ofthe passenger in a goods vehicle. (5) In the matter of Natlmud Insurance Cmnpany Ltd. Vs. ChoUetf Bharatamma and oftcrs (M08) 1 SCC 423, flie Hon'Ue Supreme Court afier q>plying several of its earlier judgment including Ncw In<ia Assurance Cmnpany Ltd. Vs. Asha RMU and ofliers (2003) 2 SCC 223 and Natfmid fasurance Cwnpany Ltd. Vs. Bdjtt Kaur saad othsrs (2004) 2 SCC 1, has held in para 10,19 aad 20, tiKrt whea a passeager dies while teaveling in a goods vehicle, tbs Insimmce Company is not liable. (6) Undisputedly, the offendiag vehicle in Ae present case is a goods canying cotmnercial vehicle namely Bajq Delivay Van. (7) Thus, the shove meationed judgment of tiie Supreme Court is squarely applicabte in Ihe &cts of the present case and tiie leamed Claims Tribanal has not committed aaay enor (rf law by eKaiCTatiflg the Insurance Company fiom Ifae lialrility of paymrait of compensation. (8) (9) The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No ordCT as to costs. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge