;5: )G—HC 78 APPELLANT (Non—Applicant 3) RESPONDENTS MISC. APPEAL NO. 11i2006 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Manager, United India InSm‘ance Co. Lt&., Anupama V V’Chowk, Jagdalpur, Divisional O§1ce, Katchmy Chowk, Raipur (CG) VER§US 1. OD MISC. APPEAL N0. 1012006 Gautam Chand Jain, S/ o. Hukmi Chand Jain, aged 33 years, R/o. Main r Road, Khas Tongpal, Distt. Dantewada (CG) (Non—applicant 1) Shantilai Jain, S/ o. Hukmi Chand Jain, aged 24 years, R/o. Main Road Khas Tongpal, Distt. (CG) (Non-applicant 2) Mangduram Dantewada S/o. Caste J ‘ APPELLANT (Non‘applicant 3) , Podyaam, Panduram, aged 38 years, Muria, RIO. village Kmna Kaleng, Thana Tongpal, District Dantewada ”(CG) (Applicant/ C1ai‘mant) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Manager, United 6m m m XI-HC—78 WW, m, Wat WWW ammm VERSUS RESPONDENTS Dhirendra Mishra, J. 01052007 Shl‘i Sanjay S. Agrawa] Shri V. Rathore, couns 8111i ViVEk Shanna, CO1 Hsard. Ina Insurance Co. Ltd., Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur Divisional 051cc, Katchury Chowk, Raipur (CG) Gautain Chanel Jain, S/ 0. Hukmi Chand Jain, aged 33 E years, R/o. Maih Road, Khas Tongpal, Distt. Dantewada .(CG) (Non-applicant 1) 2. Shantjlal Jain, S/o. I-Iukmi Chand Jain, aged 24 yeaxs, R/o._ Main Road Khas Tongpal, Distt. Dantewada (CG) (Non—applicant 2) 3, Hungaram Podyaam @ Ungaram S/o. Sukdar’am, agad 32 years, R/o. Village. Kokalpal, Thana Tongpal, District Danmwada (CG) (Applicant/ Clnt) aima , counsel for ”L116 appellant. e1 for respondent No. 1 &. 2. 111361 for respondent No.3 di / ,/ /’ ‘ XIdHC—78 WW,W‘¢,W i WW 11a 200 WW (W) WWW WWW Wmm WWWIWW ; §Eedmm MA. No. 11/2006 6m M.A. No. 10/ 2006 am being disposed of by this common order as both these appeals are directed against the common award dated 05.10.2005 passed by 31d Additional Motor Accident Claims Tlibunal, Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 33/2004 65 34/2004 wherehy fthe learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.78,000/- to injuredVHunga' Ram and Rs.74,000/— to injured Mangdu Ram for fie injuries sustained by~ them in the accident dated 03.06.2003 involving Jeep No. CG-18/D-0126 belonging to Shanti Lal Jan—mspoiident No.2 and drive rashly and negligently by Goutam Chanel Jain-respondent No.1 at the relevant time. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the vehic 1e in question was insured as a private vehicle by the appellant at. the relevant time. Howevr the same was being used for the hire purposes in breach of insurance olicy conditions. Admittedly, there is an allegation that the vehicle in question, dashed against the stationary truck, which wa parked in the centre of the road it. negligent manner, but even then e claimant has not arrayed tlie Owner, chiver and the Insurer of the said truck as parties, though the evidence regarding negligence of the driver in parking the vehicle in the centre of road s availale on record. n e p s th i b \ lammm mmm‘ he judgment delivm‘ed in fhe matter of ‘gany Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bela Ma_r-ga 85 SRgiasthan 126. leanled counsel for the respondent evidence available. on record to Show hire purpose and that too with the the contraiy the passengers have did not payy'any fare to the driver and aipur for participating in a meeting. n raised by the appellant that the were involved in the accident, it has objection has been raised by the Tribunal. The claimants have filed that the driver of the jeep was driving K ly, he dashed the jeep with the truck the Insurance Company cannot be for the first time in this appeal. d Rdiancs is placed on 1 United India Insurance Cc Others reportad in Am 1994 On the other hand submitted that thare is no that the vehicle was used permission of the owner. categorically stated that th they were forcibly taken to With respect to the obje owner 8r, driver of the tru been urged that no spe Insurance Company before the petition on the allegati the vehicle rashly 6r. neglig and .in these circumstance permitted to raise this gr for the parties. Heard learned counse l have perused the available (in/record. The appellants o b with the averments that th jeep bearing registration pugned award as also the material these appeals have tiled this appeal y were travelling with the Commander . CG‘ 18/ D—Ol26, which was driven f r n e R o e c’ c c e o t e o ' f e o WWW WWW rashly and neg1ig€nt1y by Shanti Lal Jain. On th€ dat participam in somE meeting jeep from back side of the s1 In reply, non-applicant N< offending vehicle, denied the as also the other avennent applicante, entitlement of cc in queStion was insured Wi’ pen‘od. The driver wae havi the jeep. The accident was a Non—applicant No.3] averments of the claim pe relevant time nine passe Non-applicant No.3 also to collusion between two vehi Vehicles were responsible f0 the claim petition has bee the driver of the vehicle t. license at the time of accide appellant herein also denied the tition_a11d further stated that at the ers were travelling by thesaid jeep‘ k an objection that this is a case of les and therefore, drivers of both the the accident. Rest of the averments of denied and it is further objected that as not possessing valid and eifective t. Goutam Chand Jain and owned by e of accident, they were proceeding to at Raipur, when the driver dashed the ationary truck they sustained injuries. i. 1 2 (“m i.e, driver 82. owner of the allegations of rash 8a negligent driving regarding injuries sustained by the mpensation and stated that the vehicle d1 non—applicant No.3 for the relevant 1g valid and effective license for driving [so denied. b on of the appellant that it is a case of n ' Xlml—IC 78 WWW ammm in parking the vahicle is Writ large is conc'erngd, sinC€ tha applicanis 3'11 thair claim pmition have not attn'butsd any negligence to thg driver of :‘stationaly truck and the £1011 applicant No3 have also not attn'buted any ncgligence on the driver of stationary truck, therefore, 'there wasn’t any issue before the Tribunal whether the accid ent’ occurred because of negligence of the driver of the truck or Gammander jeep and as Such there was no issue before the Tribunal of composite negligence and apportionment of the liability between two colluding Vehicles. Therefore, in the absence of pleading by the appellant in this regard, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise this issue for the first time in this appeal. The second objection regarding use of the offending jeep, which has been insured for the private purpose ie for the purpose of hire and reward, is concerned, the appellant in Paragraph ’Nos.’ 2O 6r, 21 of its written statement has stated that the driver of- oil'ending vehicle did not have valid and effective licence and on the date of accident, nine passe ngers were travelling in the said vehicle who were proceeding for Raipur to participate in some meeting and thus the vehicle was being used in violation of the insurance policy and in these circumstances non applicant No.3/appellant is not v responsible to indemnify the insured. H 4‘. it ‘I m m F. an 209 @ abide was taken on hire for thre€ who was examined on behalf of e which was insursd as a private g used for canying passengers 011 ial 113a He 11aS admitted. that tha vehicle Was insured by the appel ant. lable on record to Show fhat, the. t by the insured and therefore The hat the vehicle was being used in has not been established by the the same. Lid discussions in both the appeals No. 10/2006) preferred by the ailable to the Insurance Company i. There is no illegality or inhrmity Ie hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be pla oed with M.A. No.10 200 . Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra Judge GRPRJ FS/246 2/2007 denied the suggestion that the Vi days. Manoj Kumar Rai D.W.-2t theappellant, has stated that th car, however, the same was bein hire which amounts to commerc ' m There is no evidence aVai vehicle was let on hire or rewarc ground taken by the appellant t violation of the policy condition appellant by leading evidence for On the basis of the aforese (M.A. No. 11/2006 and M.A. appellant, there is no ground aw to challenge the impugned away in the impugned award, the appeals being devoid of substance are liable to be dismissed and they a SG.GQ3.