IN THE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL FC1 N0. ^ l 2 /2011 S MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTIONT73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 ABPELLANT <WNER Vijay Dubey S/o Late Shri N.K. Dubey, aged about 34 years, R/o New Colony, Gayanagar - Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) VERSUS <H»>; Krishna Kumar Dhruv Aged about 22 years , S/o Mangal Ram Dhruv, R/o village - Jhuranadi, P.S. & Tahsil - Chhuikhadan, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT Bhuneshwar S/o Derharam Yadav, aged about 23 years R/o Village Bhatapara Chhuikhadan, P.S. SE Tahsil - Chhuikhadan, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3.^ The New India Assurance Company Limited, through - its Divisional Manager, Thakkar Chamber, Power House, G.E. Road, Bhilai, District - •^fc.-' Durg[C.G.]. CLAIM IN APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 85,084 / COURT FEE AFFDCED ATRs. 15Z /s/i 6) HIGH COUKT OP CHHATTISQARH AT BILABPUR Misc. AppeaKQ No. 187 of 2011 ApoeUant/ Owaer Respondents/ r*1ai«nnnt AppeUant/ OwaCT Vijay Dubey Veraus Lokesh & ofhcrs Misc. Appcal (Q No. 188 of2011 Vijay Dubey Versuy Respondente/ Claiiuattt ApoeUant/ Owner Ishwari & otheis Misc. AppeaKa No. 189 of 2011 Vijay Dubey Versua Reapondents/ Ult Nanhu & ofhers AppcUaat/ Owaer Misc. Appeal (Q No. 190 of2011 Vijay Dubey Versua Reapondenta/ Claiinaut Appellant/ Owner Aatmarain & others Mjsc, Apueal (Q No. 218 of 2011 Vijay Dubey Ver«u» Respondents/ daiiuant Krishna Kumar Dhruv & ofhers Appellant/ Owner Misc. Aooeal (Q No. 221 of2011 Vijay Dubey Re»poadent»/ Clatinant VCTsaa Ramesh & others Misc. Appcal undcr Section 173 ofthc Motor Vchfctes Act 8B: Hon'UeShrt Justice N. K. Aaanral. Pre»eat : ShriALSingroul.Advocate fortheappeUaat/owncr. SIiri Maaoj Choiihan, Advocate for respondcnt No. 1/claiaiants. Shri Shri Abhishek Shanna, Advocate for respondent No. 2/Driver. . Shri Sourabh Shanna, Advocate for respondent No. 3/Insuraace Compaay. ORALAWARD (Passed on 25.04.2011) 1. Wifh the consent offhe parties, the mattcr is heard finalty. 2" By Uus common award, MA(q Nos. 187/11, 188/11, 189/11, 190/11, 218/11 and 221/11 are being disposed of as the coinnaon facts & issues are iavoh^cd in all these appeals aud are arise out ofsaine accidenfc 3. These appeals have been directed by the owncr of the vehicle against the award dated 29.11.2010, passedby the Addl. Motor Acddent Claims Tribuiial, Khairagarh, Distt. RajnaadgaDn (for short the Tnbunal") in clauu casca preferred by the claimants Tinder Scction 166 of fhe Motor Vehtelcs Act, 1988 (for short •MV Acf). 4. Brieffacts ofthe case are fhat: on 27.04.2008, due to rash and iiegligent driving of driver of Maruti Van bearing Cbassis No. 1021047 and Engine No. 3943914, the said Maruti Van tunacd turtlc as a result ofwhich aU the-claimants/ (respondent No. 1 m aB the appeals) sustamcd inultiple iajuries. 5. AU fhe claimants preferred claim petitions claiming compensation for fhe injuries sustaiaed by thcna ia the said accident against fhe drivcr, owner aad insurer of thc Van ia question. 8. Thc Tribuxial, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placcd and submissions made by the parties, held : accidcnt occurred due to rash and negHgent driviag ofdriver ofoffeuding vehicle in wlucfa abovc naiacd cJaunaats sustained multiple injuries and also sustained pcmiancnt disAilily, assessed compensation and awanled Rs. 31,4S5/- in MA(C) No. 187/11, Rs. 27.000/- in MA(C) No, 188/11, Rs. 85,888/- in MA(C) No. 189/11, Rs. 27,0001- in MA(q No. 190/11, Rs. 85,084/- in MA(C) No. 218/11 and Rs. 89,312/- in MA(C) No. 221/11 in favour of claimants psyable by the appeUant/owner and drivcr ofthe offending vehicle along with jnterest @ 6 pcrccnt fit>ni thc date of application tfll its pannent, cxoneratcd fhe insiiraacc compaay fixua its UabiUly to pay compcnsation to tbe claimants holding occupants ofthc car are not covered under thc policy. Shri AL Siagroul, leamed counsel appcarfng for the appcUant/owner of the offending vehicte wouM submit: the policy ia question is a package policy wluch covers the risK of occupants of tbe vehicJc, but thc tribunal has wiongly exoneratcd the insurauce compaay fioni its liabflily to pay compensation to the claiiaants retyiag upon its false plea fbat occupaats are not covered under the poUqr, and theTcfore, the appeal deserve to be aUcwed. Shri SoiiTsibh Sbarma, leamed couasel appearing for the respondent No. 3/iasurancc company would admit, fhe policy is package policy wlu.ch covers fbe risk of claunants. He woukl fiu-fher sutomit as per circular No. IRDA/NL/CIR/P&U/ 073/11/2009, issued by Insurancc Regulatory aad Dcvelopment Aufhority, which is binding on aU the insurancc coinpany, risk ofoccupant ofprivate car is covered in a package policy. He would further subnut iasurance coinpany has already paid O.D. claun preferred by ftie owncr. 9. I have heard fhe counsel appearing for the pardes, perused fhe 7 award impugned aad records ofthe Tribunal. 10. It appears fhat, tfae insuraace compaay took a plea fhat policy did not covcr thc risk of claunants, who are occupants of fhe private car, ^normg circular No. IRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/ 073/11/2009, therefore, the tribunal has grossty erred in exoncTating the insurancc coinpaay fiom. its UabiUty to pay compensation in fhe iastaat case where poUcy is package policy. 11. For the reasons nientioned hereinabove, fhc appeals deserve to be and are herby aUowcd. Respondent No.S/Insurance Coinpany is also hcld liable for payiuent of compensation jointly aad severaUy with appeUant/owner and respondent No.2/ driver. Respondent No.S/Insurance Company fa granted two nionfhs timc for payment of coinpensation to fhe claimaats. Othcr conditions of award shaU remain intact Amount paid by the appeUant shall be refunded. 12. Accordingty, impugned award dated 29.11.2010 is modified to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu -*»(-