@ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF_CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPURt^ M.A. ( C ) N0 APPELLANT /INSURER RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS (18s2) >^v^^' .-^"^^ Ji^ / 2009 (D.B.) Versus :1. ^ 2. DRIVER ^ 3. 43WNER 4.. -National Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office, Bilaspur-(C.G.; Itwara Bai Karsh, Wd/o Late Ramadhar Karsh, Aged about 50 years Dilip Kumar, S/o Late Ramadhar Karsh, Aged about 30 years, Both are R/o Village Tantan, P.S. 8s Tahsil - Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur- (C.G.) Santosh Singh, S/o Mangal Singh, Aged about 25 Years, R/o Village Kargikala Belwadongri, P.S. - Kota, Distt. Bilaspur-(C.G.) Govind Singh, S/o Rajju Singh Dhruv, R/o Village - Belpan, P.S. 8s Tahsil - Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur- (C.G.) x^' APPEALJJ/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M Quddusi. & Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra. JJ. M.A.(C»No608of 2009 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus ttwara Bai Karsh and others. JUI^MENT FOR CONSIDERATION Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Hon'bte Shri I.M. QucWusi. J. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge -^^-•TJiyjEO'l-I Postfor^3- 03-2011 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge f] '^ <? 'v ^A \i ~"<s ^ ^te...':; HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bte Shri I.M. Chiddusi. J. & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra.AL APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.(ClNo.608of2009 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Itwara Bai Karsh and othere. Appearance: Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for tte appellant. Shri Hemant Gupta, counsel fw respondent No.2. Shri Subhash Yadav, cQunsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. JUD6MENT l^ 30011) PerPrashant Kumar Mishra. J. This appeal under Section 173ofthe MotorVehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the National tnsurance Company Limfted, challenghig the impugned award whereby the leamed VIII Motor A»ident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Bilaspur haspartly allowed the claim applicationof the claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 awarding compensation of Rs.4,04,000/- to the said claimant and at the same time fastening the liability for payment of compensation on the appellant/lnsuraroe Company. 2. Brief facts of the case, in short, as projected by the claimants, are Uiat on 05/0^2008 deceased Jogi Karsh was returning back to his village from Bilaspur by traveling in the tractor bearing registration No. C.G.10 D 2720 along wWh Vhe driver/respondent No. 3 and when they reached near village Kargahani at about 6:00 p.m. the tractor tumed turUe due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and on account of the iryuries sustained by the deceased, he died on e spot. The claimante claiming to be dependents ofthe deceased claimed compensation <rf Rs.21,11,(X)0/- on the pleadings that tte deceased was the sote bread winner of the family and ba^use of his cteath they have auffered k»sof income. r. -A^ 3. The non-claimants No.1 & 2 who are the driver and owner respectively fited their joint written statement and submitted that the offending vehicte was sent to Bilaspur for servicing, and when they were returning back from Bilaspura herd of catUe came on the roadin front of the vehfcle, therefore the driver was driving the vehicle slowrty, however to save some catttes he took the vehicte on the roadskte and at that time the tractor tumed turtle on account of which dweased Gopi Karsh fell down and was crushed under the fractor. According to ese non-claimants Uie driver was not negligent in driving Uie vehicle and ttie liabilify ^ payment of compensation is on the Insurance Company as the vehicte was insured on the date <rf accident. 4. The appetlant/lnsurance Company, in its repty, stated ftat the tractor was insured for agricultural purposes and no passenger was allowed to travel in the tractor. Thus, according to the appellant, the deceased having been found traveling on Uw tractor, it fe a case of breachof terms of polksy and as such the Insurance Cpmpany was not liable to indemnity the owner and to saSsfy the award. 5. On the basis of evidence adduced by the partjes leamed Tribunal recorded a finding that the driver was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, however the Tribunal recorded a finding that (he Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award because the deceased was not on sitting Uie tractor at the time of accident ahd as such it cannot be said that he was fraveling in the tractor. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the finding with regard to liability <rf Insurance Company is ateolutely ; perverse and the Tribunal has erred in law while holding that the rtnsurance Company is liable to saCsfy e award. ^ -3- 7. This Court has (»msedthe widence adduced by the parti»and the policy of Insurance. Admittedly, ttie ofFending vehicle is a fractor. The Insurance Policy (Ex.N.A.3-1) is captioned as "Miscellaneous and Special Type of Vehtales, Policy B Package". In the clause timitation as to use it is stated thatthe policydoes not cover carrjage of passengere for hire or reward. In the schedute of premium only one pereon has been covered uncter the head WC to empl<^ee. Thus, the pvMcy does not cover any other person ttan the driver. In the claim peUtion tt js pteaded in para 4 ftatthe decMsed had gone for servKing ofthe vehfcte along wtth the driver. In para 7 it is further stated that the deceased was woridng in the tractor and was an employee of the owner of the tractor. The owner has also ^ated in the written statement that deceased died as he was crushed under the tractor at the time when the tractor tumed turUe, however there is no spectficandcategorical statement that at the time of accklent the deceased was not sitting on the tractpr andwas in fact on Uie road to remove the catUes. Para 4 of the joint wrftten statement ofthe owner and driver is reproduced hereunder:- "q? ^ ^I^T T=t ^ *fe*b-4 ^T?I5 ^Wf wi<t>K t, f^ f^W-05.08.08 ^t •^rtt ^f ^feir irer ^Fr ^? ^r ^iNRpr ^RI^ ^ro^ ^ ^na-T Rciw^ siraT w, sfr? w ?fl5^ WTO Wf '!d<{4t^ ^ TTCT WI^ ^ ^IHq^ ^T ^JS 3IT^Taff 1 ^Pm ^^ ^ WW^ ^^'*^'^ ^v\ -i ^R^f ^t ^lt ^? ^»RI '^r sff, f^» ^ Wi ^ ^n^RR ^te^ i? ^FI^ w "t^, f^ ^n^ ^ f^ ^ra^ ^ spr^ 'qi^r ^rf^n^ f^qrg!hr f^n^ ^wra ^ "cn?Tf IRR ^, fSre% ^cPTT ^ERf q^ ^ 'Ttit ^ '?! ^ ^ W?°T ^ ^Ri^ 1ER^T Wcf TR ^ ^St "^ I VfSV ^RT T? yW \ ^ ^raq^ TOT ^1?:?f ^ 3RTRT ^q ^ ift 5E[f^r ^rf^RT 'i® !^.-. i': ::•> -^- ^f «IT I 'qg'ft Wq t, l^ ^Rff ^R^T ^t ^IN WTT ^RT ^r^ 'T^ t l w^, ^? N^e ^T ^r '^R t, f^ai^i^* ^l?^ ^ 'Nt ^ <-lt4'{c|l^l ^^ 'ERfT ^ST Sff |" 8. In Uie F.I.R. (Ex.P/2) also it is mertioned that the deceased was traveling in the tractor and he died because he felt down from the tractor whenittumedturtle. 9. In view of the pleading made by the owner in the written statement wherein it has not beenspecificallymentioned that the deceased was not baveling in the vehicte and keeping in view the avermente made in the claim petition and the contenls of F.I.R., ftis Court is of consklered opinion that the finding recorcted by the Tribunal that at the Ume of accident the deceased was not fraveling in the fractsor but was on the road, ther^>re the Insurance Company is liable to psw compensation, is perverse as thepteading and ewdence donrtsupportfte said finding refcorded bythe Tribunal. 10. In the matter of New Imila Assurance Company Llmlted Vs. VedwaS and oithws reported in 2007 (2) TA.C. 8 (S.C.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held Uiat a fractor insured for agricuttural purposes does not permit carrying passenger and thatthere is no statutory liability on theowner of the goods vehide to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelingin the goods vehicle, therefore the insurer is not liable to satisty the award. 11. In view of the above discussfon, this Court is of the opinton that the appeal deserves to be allowed as ttie Insurance Company coukl not have been held liable to satisty the award. ^•1t ^-^-^^—'^-•-•^" ^7 -5 12. Consequently, the appeal is atlowed and ttie impugned gward is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company is not liabte to satisfy the award, however the claimants shall be atliberty to execute the award and realiro the amount of compensation from the owner crf the vehicle. Stl'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge (^- ^ r"