o^v IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR M.A. No. -T-/^ ^2004 APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT- <No. 3 risjnit B°nc Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Through : Divisional Manager, Kutchary Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS »*» :<^ 1. Awadh Ram Sahu, S/o Bodhiram Sahu, Aged about 48 years. 9- ^ ^^ ^@K 2. Kumari Bai Sahu, W/oAwadh Ram Sahu, Aged About 45 year, Both R/o. Village<<SEMAR", P.S. Kurud, District- Dhamtari /.w <^y <^<- ^'^^ 6-> e, 3. Trilok Singh Dhruv, ^' S/o Sitaram Dhruv, Aged About 23 year, Occupation- Driver, R/o. Village- Senjuwa, P.8.- Kumd, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) Shaildendra Pratap Singh Thakur S/o R.S.Thakur, R/o. Vill.- Kumd, P.S. Kumd, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION ^73 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 9^' ^i.HC—78 3:?T^I^T'fi<vli<^ ^^•sn^T'^^i^ » ^ c c t *ll*1^Ii ^i*11<t» "?'^[ ^I^KI^, ^^T^/fa<ni-M^< <A{>-Mo-71(T/oll ^•••••"•••"•••-•••••-•••••"""-•'•••"'•"""^^•200 3^T ^^T (^q{y«^) ^<TTW ^lt^ SH^t SB: HON. SHRIJUSTICBl respotident; ag^lnst 20-7-2009 Shri A.K. Athale, Adf. Shri Shivendu Pandff None for other 2. This appeal has Insurance Company, passed by V[th Additional| Raipur in Claim Case claimants under Section (hereinafter referred to as 3. Brief facts of the 3.30 a.m. in fhe ni^it, along witfa other person^ motor vehicle Metadoor N<! goods (vegetable) as own^r reached near village Pars^ and negligent drivmg of Dhurya, the vehicle Ohandraprakash Sahu died in Governinent Hos ti^veling in the vehicle al ^FF^T^T 'RTR^f ^fS^tf^-^K: ^F 3tf?R 3T7^T N.K.AGARWAL ib6 cafee ^. for fhe appellants. |ra, Adv. for respondents No. 1 & 2. tidents, thoughsei-ved. peen. directed by the Oriental the award dated 5-5-2004 Motor Accident Claims Tribuual, |No. 48/2003 preferred by the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 IJieAct). , tfee are that on 8-4-2003 at about |deceased Chandraprakash Sahu was coming towards Raipur in [). CG 05-ZB/ 0104 along with Ms of fhe goods. When the vehicle ^.tflii, P.S. Abhanpur, due to rash ^.river of the vehicle Trilok Siagh turtle, as a result of which serious bodily injuries and ^pital, Raipur. The other persons }so sustained serious injuries.At turrled su^tained Xl-HC—78 ^T^T ^FT'i^-jicb; ?T^ -3?I^T ^HW ^ c ,( ^ ^^ ^l^w^, ^Tl1^^j^,'fa^i'H^< *11*<CTJ ^*11<» ^200 aiT^T -q^T ( ^cli^^) ^TTW ^f^T 3T?^T the time 6f accident, re^ deceased Chandraprakastl insurance coinpany is not| that according to policy o: of 8 persons in the goods ^l^?^l^1^ 'RPR^ff ^f f^ZT <P^'^l< ^ 3rfRR ^T^T .pondent No. 3 was driver and respondent no. 4 was cjw^ner of the vehicle which was insured with the app^llant/uisurance company. The claiinants/respondents Nc(. 1 and 2 are unfortunate father and motfaer of the deceajsed Chandraprakash Sahu, who died in the accident The cjlaimants by filing a claun petition under Section 166 and 14|0 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly, (fhe Act^, claime4 compensation to the tune ofRs. 15,00,000/- on various he^ds. 4. The appellant/tnsul'ance company has denied its liability to iademniiy the o^ner/insured on the grounds fhat was fraveling in the said motor vehicle, which is registere4 as a goods vehicle by the R.T.O., along wifh 7 other pers^ns and therefore, the appellant liable to indemntfy fhe owner for any ainount of compensatiJ3n which may be awarded against the driver, owner ofthe s4id vehicle. It was further pleaded insurance m this case, traveling ^ehicle is not valid; m fhe tnstant case, neiftier fhe insui'anc^e policy covers risk of passengers^^ nor any extra premium wa^ paid. ^:^^,^|^^^M^^:^^;^^^' fKsSissxsiSSi9, ^9tSyiiiiSVKSS!SKml Xl-HC—78 3Tr^T ^RT f^TN?- ^T;^IT^T ^t^ich ^ c b.^ ^^F ^i^i^ ^i, ^Ti}^4 i<o/ ?^<nw^< win:4K»»*ii«^» ^F^200 ^n^T "v^ CT(^^) ^nw 1af^TCT^T 5. The leamed Tribunal produced by the pardes, Insurance Coinpany is lial|3 of the vehicle to pay fhe cij: ofRs. 1,60,000/- to fhe 6 < Shri Afhale, leamed <|: that several persons small percentage of goods traveliag as owner of representative in the vehic^ of fhe Act and he placed Apex Court in the case c^ Limited -v- Cholleti lialtle clajimants trav^ling Shlvendu 12008} 1 SCC 423. 7. Per contra, Shri appearing for the responc^ent award and submitted fhat the case, the award pa4s UabUity upon the insuran|;e reasons and deser^es to be! 8. I have heard leam^< perused the records as alsc^ <^MF<n^l^ ^H<rf? ^f fsl<1 <F^^i< ^3tf?R3?T^T on appreciating of the evidence bame to tihie conclusion fhat the along with the owner/insured )mpensation and awarded a sum as compensation. ?ounsel f&r the appellant submits tn the goods vehicle with |sannot be said to be the persons ) jthe goods or his authorized |e in terms of Section 147(l](b)(i) |reliance upon fhe judgment of National Insurance Comoanv Bhadatamma and others reported in Pandya, leamed counsel No. 1 and 2 supported the in the facts and circuiastances of sed by the Tribunal fastening company is based on cogent upheld. d counsel for fhe parties and the impugned award. ~~~^~~~^ mSSiSSSSSS ^ ^%lil^i^^il^^^i^^^'^;;^'..^J-^^ Xl-HC—78 3TT^T ^FT^-iJ^ ?T^T ^IT^T shHW ^ c c, ^ ^) ^"^r ^!i^idt4, ^W<^; [^Tni^^< ••U^Kfll ^NI^* •^T^ZOO 3TT^T •q^T (^i^^) ^mw^ft^^T^ 9. Now the question ch1^id<4l"1 'RTR^ ^fe^^^K ^a^RB^T Ebr determination is whether the various persons traveltng|ni fhe truck (inatador) along with thetr goods can be said tcj be hirer ofthe truck (matador) in terms ofSection 147(1) (b)(pi) oftheAct 10. Now in view of the v^rious pronouncements of Hon?ble Apex Court, it is settied ^ositior^fhat the statutoiy liability of the Insurance Companj? cannot be extended to cover the risk of gratuitous passen^ers. This is not fhe case of any party that by taking extr^. premium, fhe risk of gratuitous passengers has been cove^^r ^kJL. 11. Section 147(l)(b)(i) o^ the Act reads as under:- "147. Requirei4ents of policies and limifcs of liability. -11) In order to comply with the requirements of|fhis Chapter, a policy of insurance must be atpoUcy which- (a) XXX XXX XXX specified in fhe policj sub-section (2)- (b) Insures the pe^son or classes of persons t to fhe extent specified in (i) against a^iy liability which may be inciirred ]3y him. in respect of fhe death of ]or bodily injury to any person, ^ncluding owner of fhe goods |or his authorized »» Xl-HC—78 STT^T"^I"R^i<=h ?T^f 3^?T ^^ior> / c ^ "3"S[ ^{^Mq, ^^^}^ ?^Tri(^^< *iP4<'ir^b*(i<i» ^200 an^T 1?^R> (yt^^T) y^fT^R ^rft^ QTi^T represent^ or damag^ party cau^ use offhe! 12. A bare perusal of reveal fhat the owner o| representative carried in is statutorily covered und^ the owners of fhe goods or| HonT^le Apex Court in t^ Comoanv Limited -v- Sed;tion tllie 147(l)(b)(i) of the Act would f fhe goods or his authorized vehicle is the only person who }r fhe provision of fhe Act and not tih^ir aufhorized representatives. he case of National Insurance CUolleti Bharatamma and others reported in (20081 1 SCC nuafcber held fhat tfae Act does not shall carry a large percentage of goods as covers fhe death or injurie^ or his authorized representjative 13. The saine propositio]|i Apex Court m case ofNatitonal v- Rattani and others (SL| observed that:- ^s^^^l^ ^RPraf ^f fs^ <P^'^{< ^ ^tfiR 3:H^T .tive carried in the vehicle to any property of a third ied by or arising out of the vehicle in a public place,?? 423 in para 8 has categoricaUy t;ontemplate that a goods carriage of passengers with smaU c<|>nsiderably fhe insurance policy eifher of the owner of the goods has been reiterated by Hon!t)le Insurance Comoanv Ltd. - pra) and in para 12, it has been Xl-HC-78 3?7^I^f^-li<=h ^TO 33rT^?T sFRW / t ^^T ^WW^, ^Tll^f41<S, [s!^|^t>j,< *<i^lfli »»*<icb "^200 ^^ Tr^T (^Qii^<<^r) ¥^TW^t^^1^T "12. Even if the Subramonmm Prasad goods offered by way were being transportec^ and others could representatives oj\ goods...^^.^^^^^3f dicta 14. In view of the above case and in view of the the above referred cases, th4 fastening the Uability Company and the same ijjpon jEmd^ng 15. Therefore, in ftie facts] have no hesitation to hold including fhe deceased wer^ gratuitous passengers and appellant hereiri was not| compensation to the claima|its 16. For the reasons cannot be sustsdned. The of the appellpfit is concem^d case, during the pendency been deposited by fhe appe '5Fi<4fc^i ^H^T^f fe^ <r^^{< "^ 3:tf?R 3?T^?T submission of Mr. that in the truck the |of gift by the bride party is correct, the deceased hot have become the the owner of the 'acts and circumstances of the of Hon'ble Supreme Court in learned Tnbunal went wrong in "the appellant/Insurance deserves to be set aside. and circumstances of the case, I that the victims of the accident traveling in fhe goods vehicle as in that view of the matter, the Uable to pay the amount of afore|iientioned, the unpugned award s^me is set aside, so far as Mability 1. However, it is directed fhat in <|)fthis appeal, ifany amount has appellant/Iiisurance Company and ^lKllllliSSISSSIiiSlt^; 'silSillS88SSSSS%i X2-HC—78 3=ni^T ^T f^TW 7fs?f 3??^T s^^i<=r> 7 wfR ll^l>*lict» ^^ ^{i<4l<rl<4, ^'a)^j4{To, f^<ni^^< ..M^..^.37.(^:/0^.. ^200 ^T^T^^ (yi(^<^T) ^mW^rf^T^T^T disbursed to the claimantk CompaiT^ shall be entitldd owner of the vehlcle by fflj The claimants are entitledl owner bffhe vehicle. ^, then the appellant / Insurance to recover the same from the fng execution before the Tribunal. 1 to execute the award against the 17. The appeal is accordi)igly allowed. 18. However, there shall '^l^fdJfl^«}^<nT^feT^<P3i^i< iFT 3tf?PRr ^^ pe no order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge