Ip BEFOBE THE HON'BLE HIGH COUBT OF CHHATTISGABH AT BILASPUR {C.G.) ^s=> M.A.NO. Q'2.'3> /2007 .'<-.-..¥ .'*? !^'^1^^^ APPELLANT -'PI.A.NO. 2 (Driver) ^^ APPELLANT N.A.NO. 3 ^-^(Owner) K^-' BESPONDENT ,N.A. N0.1 (Insurer) 1. ^ BESPONDENTS-^ ,2 APPLICANTS CIaAIMANTS ' y 3. ? Gaukaran Dubey, aged about 38 years, son of Shri Ramdulare Dubey, oocupation Driver and cultivation, resident of village - Bartikhurd, Post Bartikala, P.S. Chalgali, Tah. Wadrafnagar, Distt. Surguja (CG) Harischandra, aged about 28 years, son of Shri Bamdulare, oooupation business, resident of village —Bartikhurd, Post Bartikala, P.S. Chalgali, Tah. Wadrafnagar, Distt. Surguja (CG) VEBSUS United India Insuranoe Company, Branoh Offioe — Shakti Nagar, I 215, J.M.B. Shakti Nagar, Sonbhadra U.P. Bamadhar Dubey, aged about 70 years, son of Late Dadu Ram Dubey, oocupation - Retired Teacher. Susheela Dubey, wife of Ramadhar Dubey, aged about 60 years, ocoupation housewife. /:^^ ^^ws'^^y;!ffsR,f,^i^fss!isessa9Ssswsst > > 6 Leelawati Dubey, widow of Late Shyam Kartik Dubey, aged about 32 years, oocupation — housewife. Bajeev Dubey, aged about 14 years (Minor), so of late Shyam E^artik Dubey, Deepak Dubey, aged about 17 years, son of Late Shyam Kartik Dubey Bespondents No.5 and 6 are minors, through their 'natural guardian i.e. the Respondent No. 4 (Leelawati Dubey, widow of Late Shyam Kartils Dubey, aged about 32 years) Respondents No. 2 to 6 are the resident of village Bartikhurd, Post Bartikala, P.S. Chalgali, Tah. Wadrafnagar, Distriot Surguja (C.G.) >»"• MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDEB SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 ^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATnS6ARH AJ BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. 6. MINHAJUDDIN.JZ Aooellants N.A. No.2 (Driver) Resoondents N.A.No.1 CEnsurer) M.A. k1 N0.4Z3/2007 Saukaran Dubey and cnother Vs United India Insurance Compciny Present: Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate for the appellonts. Mr. Oashrath Supta, Advocate for respondent No.l/Insurance Company. Ms. Sharmila Singhai with Mr. Sanjay A9rawal, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 6. ORDER (OraO (12th May, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has been filed by the driver and the owner of -rtie vehicle against the impugned award dated 4.12.2006 passed by II Additional Motor Accident Chims Tribunal (FTC), Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C6) (for short Tribunal') in Cbim Case No.71/2006 as liability to pay compenscrt-ion has been imposed upon them, exonerating the insurer i.e. United India Insurance Company. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the date of accident i.e. 5.6.2005 at about 3.30 in the night, Shyam Kartik Dubey - son of respondents No. 2 & 3 and husboind of respondent No.4 - vros coming towards his house in motorcycie No. UP 64 E 8318. The said motorcycle was being driven by oppellont No.l in a rcish and negligent manner ouid on account of which, he could not properly see the truck coming from opposite direction ond thereby caused the motorcycle felf in a pit, as a result,, the pillion rider Shyam Kart-ik Dubey died on the spot. At that time, one Surya Bhushan Patel reached the spot and he lodged report jn. Bt .jiy-i. ^l3£"l|8 f^ ^.:^ '^vSiy' & Police Station - Ramkola. Thereafter, the police filed a criminal case against appellant No.l for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC before the concerned Court. Respondents No. 2 to 6 herein were dependent upon the deceased. According to thein, the deceased was working as mason and thereby used to earn Rs.300/- per day dnd on account of his death, they have suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.15 lacs, which they are entitled to recover from the respondent No.l/insurance company and the appellouits herein jointly and severa!iy. 3. We have perused the insurance policy and found that it was a "Motor/Scooter Package Polie/". This fact hois also not been disputed by Searned counsel appearing for the Insuronce Company Shri bashrath Gupta. However, he has disputed the fact that the driver of the two-wheeler i.e. the vehicie in question was not having a valid and effective driving !icence on the date of accident. Though this issue has been decided against them, but according to Shri Supta, since the !iabi!ity was imposed upon the owner and the driver of the vehicSe and the insurance company was exonerated. no appeoil was fiied by' them against tiie finding of the Tribuna!. 4. Tne Insurance Regulatory and Deve!opment Authority vide its circuisr ciated 16 November, 2009 has clarified that the earlier circulars issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee dated 18 AAarch, 1978 regarding occupcnts car-ried in pr-ivate car and dated 2 June, 1986 regarding pillion riders in two-wheelers shall be fo!lowed, by which it was made clear that tne insured's liabiiit/ in respect of occupants co.rried in a private car cmd piilion rider carried on two- wheeler is covered under the Stondard Motor Package Policy. TTie fol'owing (lirections were issued: "The Authority vide circuhr no. 066/IRDA/F&U/Mar-08 dated March 26, 2008 issued under File A Use 5uide!ines has reiterated that pending furthsr orders ihe insurers shal! not u .^& 3 ,^o "7' vary the coverage, terms ond conditions, wordings, warranties, clouses and endorsements in respect of covers that were under the erstwhile tariffs. Further the Authorit/, vide circular no. 019/ER&A/NL/F&U/Oct-(% dated November 6. 2008 has fflandated that insurers are not permitted to abridge the scope of standard covers availabte under the erstwhile tariffs beyond the options permitted in the erstwhile tariffs. AII (Seneral Insurers are ddvised to adhere to the aforementioned circulars and any non-compliance of the same woutd be viewed seriously by the Authority." 5. In view of the above, the pillion rider wcis covered under the Insurance Packa9e Policy and therefore, the inairance company could not have been exonerated. But if the two-wheeler rider was not hoving a valid and effective driving licence, the liability to pay compensation would certainly go to the dppellants i.e. the owner and the driver of two-wheeler. 6. Therefore, we allow this dppea! and set aside the impugned award in so far as It imposes liability upon the driver, the owner and also decides the issue that the driver of the vehicie in question was having a valid and effective driving iicence on the date of accident, ond remit tiie matter back to the Tribunal to decide that issue crfresh and thereafter ho!d whether the insurance compcmy or ttie present appellonts are !iab!e to pay compensation to the ctaimants. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend the p!eadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the documents verified etc. and thereafter, the decision shall be taken afresh m the above regard oniy. Tne parties shal! appear before the IffTri-n F y .^•sa^i^.-.^Itfi'^TS ^:^'1^11'';^^!^^"^^^^" ••c^.N. 4 Tribunal on 27th June, 2011. The LCft shall be sent back without further delay. 7, No order as to costs. Khan/- 8. Certified copy as per rules. I.M.Quddusi Judge j G.Mmhajjusiin Judge fw