M c<^- lS r-1. IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT^JLASPUR M.A. (C) Noy^"^ OF 2008 (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs. 51.500 /-) ^^W'^-^^(lv APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE^ MQTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. APPELLANT (NON-APPLICANT N0. 3) ,'J^:^^^ - ^yy . ^ ^ y.^-' ^—' ^ ^u a' RESPONDENT (APPLICANTNO.l) ^t United India Insurance Company Limited, Through: Its Branch Manager, R.B, Traders, 1st Uoor Stadium Road Transport Nagar, Korba, Tah. & Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS Bharat Lal, S/0- Jhunuram, Aged 46 year^^' (APPLICANT N0.2) ,.:2. Chhatbai, W/0-Bharatlal )' (NON- APPLICANT N0. 1) (NON- APPLICANT N0. 3) ^ Aged about 44 years, Both are by Caste:- Yadav, R/0- Navagaon, P.S.- Balauda, Distt.-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) <; :3. Pardeshi t^ Nankiram about-30 Raninagar, Janjgir, Ram, S/0- Yadav, Aged years, R/0-, Nailla, P.S.- Disst.-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) :4, Jagat Sing, S/0- Bodhan Singh Binjhwar, aged about-40 years, R/0- Navagaon, P.S.-Balauda, Disst.-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) - — HJOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT A.PPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.CNo.1407 of 2008 United India Insurance Company Limited VERSUS Bharat Lal & Others (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACn (SB: Hon'We Mr. N.K. Aaamal.AJ. Present : Shri Dashrath Gupta; Advocate for the appeiiant. Shri indrasen Sahu, Advocate for responderst No. 1 & 2. Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 3 & 4 (Passed on 27.08.2811) 1. Cross Appeal filed by respondent No. 1&2 is dismissed as not pressed. 2. This appeai has been preferred by appeiiant/insurance Company against the award dated 09.05.2008 passQd by the Chief Motor Accident Ciaims Tnbunal, Janjgir-Champa (for short !the Tribuna!') in claim case No. 92/07. 3. As against compensation of Rs. 6,82,000/- clalmed by the unfortunate parents of deceased Deepak Kumar, aged about 5 years, by fiiing appiicatlon before the Tribuna! under Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') for the death of deceased in the motor accident on 20.08.2006, the Tribunal assessed and awarded total sum of Rs. 51 >500/- a!ong with interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of appilcation tili its actua! payment. ^\ T^s^ ^. "^ ai% j ^•y/ ^^ The Tribunai, on a close scrutiny of the evidence !ed by the parties, material avaiiabie on the record and submlssions of the partieSi heid : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor bearing reglstration No. CG-11-A-5993; Deepak Kumar, aged about 5 years, died on account of injuries sustained in the said accldent; appellant / insurance company llabie for payment of compensation as the insurance company has failed to prove vlo!atlon of policy conditions; assessed and awarded tota! sum of Rs. 51 >500/- as compensation in favour of claimants as against the appellant/lnsurance Company. Shri Dashrath Gupta, leamed counsel appearing for the appeliant wouid submit : deceased Deepak Kumar was sitting in the Tractor as a gratultous passenger. Under the statutory policy, the insurance company Is not required to cover such risk nor has undertaken such risks by entering into specia! contract with the owner of the vehicle by charging extra premium therefor, and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in fastening theliabiljty upon the appe!!ant/insurance company to pay compensation to the daimants. On the other hand, Indrasen Sahu, leamed counsef appearing for respondent No. 1 & 2 and Shri Somnath Verma, counse! for respondent No. 3 & 4 supported the award and wou'd submit the policy is farmer's package policy, therefore the Tnbiinat has rightly fastened the liabillty upon the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation to the clalmants. ^^\' ^ l.i ?! 7. i have heard the counse! appearing for the parties and penjsed the award impugned as wel! as record ofthe Tribunal. 8. A bare perusal of FIR (Ex. A/2) and statement para 11 and 4 of Bharat Lai and Deshraj respectlvely \A/ou!d revea! deceased Deepak Kumar was sitting in the Tractor; fel! down from the Tractor and died on account of injuries sustalned in the said accident. 9. Undisputediy, deceased Deepak Kumar was not the empioyee. Certainly he was a gratuitous passenger. Appeliant/lnsurance company has examlned Shri Siddique as their witness who clearly deposed that appeilant/insurance company has not covered the risk of gratultous passengers sittlng in the Tractor by entering into specia! contract and by charging extra premium therefor. A bare perusai of Pollcy (Ex. NA/3-1) would also show the same has not been Issued coverlng the risk of gratuitous passenger. 10. The provisions of ^4Qtor Vehicles Act do not enjojn any statutory liability on the owner of the vehjde to get hls veh'cie insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liabj!ity therefor. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co, Ud_v. Vedwatl & others, (2007) 9 SCC 48€in paragraph 6 heid as under: "6. .......... The dlfference in the language of 'goods vehide' as appearing in the old Act and 'goods camage' in the Act is of significance. A bare readlng of the ^ ^ ^M provisions makes it clear that the tegisiative intent was to prohibit goods vehicie from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression 'in addition to passengers' as contained in the definltjon of 'goods vehicle' in the old Act. The posjtlon becomes further clear because the expression used 'goods camage' is solely for the carriage of 'goods'. Car^ing of passengers in a goods carriage is not contempiated in the Act. There is no provision slmiiar to Ciause (w) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance poHcy. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodiiy injury to any passenger of 'public service vehicie'. The proviso makes It further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle'. The proviso makes its further clear that compuisory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of pubiic sen/lce vehicle and employees carried in goods yehicle wouid be limited to Jiability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the WC Act'). There is no reference to any passenger jn 'goods carriage'. 10. The inevltable concluslon, therefore, Is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutorv ijabiiity on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehide insured for any passenger travelling in a goods camage and the insurer would have no liabllity therefor." 12. In view of the above and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred case, the Tribunai has erred in fastening the liability upon the appeitant/lnsurance company. 13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal is aiiowed in part. The award is set aside against the appellant/Unlted India tnsurance Company Limlted. The award is modified to the extent that now the appe!!ant/insurance company js not iiable for payment of compensation to the clajmante. 14. The respondent No. 1 & 2 are free to execiite thR award against the respondent No. 38-4. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shal! remain Intact. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sahu