INTHEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) Di¥5SJO!1 M.A.fONo. 5/6 Of-2097^-2.(9 0 & 9T APPELLANT I^ON-APPLICANT N0. 3 .:- Unitedlndia Insurance Company Through Branch Manager, T.P. Nagar, Korba (Chhattisgarh). RESPONDENTS VERSUS :-1. Smt. Firobai, aged 31 years, wife of ^ Late Dwarika Prasad, (-- 2,, Ku. Kunti, aged 8 years, daughter of Late Dwarika Prasad, K^ 3<- Ku. Sashi, aged 6 years, daughter of Late Dwarika Prasad, "l?- „:•=;•:..,„ daughter ofLate Dwarika Prasad, 6^ 5. Ku. Neha, aged 2 years, daughter of Late Dwarika Prasad, 6^. Ramcharan, aged 50 years, son of Nemi, 7,/Sint. Dhuknin Bai, aged 46 years, /" wife ofRamcharan, ^ 8, Minor Deepak, aged 23 days, son of Late Dwarika, Respondent no. 2 to 5 and 8, being minor through their natural guardian mother Smt. Firobai, ..<-' i^SUSi^ SBn'SiSKil ' All resident ofGaniyari, Kartala, KorK (Chhattisgarh), CLAIMANTS ). Anil Soni, aged 28 years, son of Late Laxmi Soni, resident of Kela Godam, Sanjay Nagar, Korba (Chhattisgarh) (Driver), lO.Smt. Santoshi Soni, aged 27 years, wife of Dorelal Soni, resident of Chiknapali, Kartala, Korba (C.G.). NON-APPLICANT N0.1 AND 2 APPEAL UNDER SECTTON 173 OE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. *^<_-, . „ „ ., . ^ <<^ -Q—1yin '-nc_z—^^^lr' T<L_itali-l ci+ RcT 1 S/-^> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bte Shri I.M. Quddusi. J. & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J, APPELLANT RESPONDENTS I.A.(C)No. 318 of 2008 United India fnsurance Company Vereus Smt. Firobai and others. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 Appearance: Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (08/12/2010) Following oral order of the Court was passed by I. M. Quddusi. J. List is being revised. Case called out. No one is present for the respondents, therefore we proceedagainst the respondents ex-parte. (2) This appeal has been filed against the impugned award dated 30/10/2007 passed by II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.). Korba so far as it imposes the liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants. (3) The brief facte of the case are that on 05/08/2006 tractor bearing registration No. C.G.10A/0941 and trolley No. C.G. 10A/1406 was dmen by respondent No.9/driver and owned by respondent No.10 and was insured by the appellant/lnsurance Company. On the date of incident deceased Dwarika Prasad was sitting on the tractor and coming from Patadi to village Ganiyari, near village Tuman, he fetl down from the tractor and wheel of the tractor ran over him and was crushed. He was taken to Sosalya Hospital, Korba for treatment and during treatment he ..^ "^l ./^.''L <c. •s-,' "\ s died. The deceased vas aged about 33 ^ars and he was wwldng as Mazdoor in tractor. The claimants being dependente of U dec^sed, filed ciaim petition ctaiming to the tune of Rs.29,90,000/-. (4) We have perused the Lower Court Record, the impugned award as well as the Insurance Policy. (5) In the Insurance Poticy PA. to OTmer-eum-driver is risk covered up to Rs.2,00,000/- and WPC to employee one is unlimited, h<wever since ttie tractor was not being driven by the owner and by the driver employee ss such one emplo^e was covsred i.e. driver by the Insurance PoRcy. No risk of the labourer was covered under the poli(y amd as such for atl purpose it shait be presunrod that the deceased was trav^ing i® gratuitous passenger who was engaged by the owner of the traetor as her iarbourer. In the case of Unltevl Insurance Comptmy Limfted Vs. Segerao and Oltiers r^xxted m (2<K ) 7 SCC 425 it has bsen hekl by the Apex Court that relying on th®decfefon of the Qrientsrf tosuranc® Company Llmited Vs. Biy ttohwi reported in (2ttff) 7 SCC 56 regarding questton of tiabitifyoT taboureis traveting in the troltey it mis hetd by the Insurance Company has no liabitity. (6) Thereifore, we allow this appeal in part and s^-ssKte only the part qfthe award by which Uie liability (rfthe tnsurance Company/appetlant has been imposed. The amount awarded is not chaltenged and we have not coreidered the same at this sta®e. We hold that the amount of compensation will be iiabte to be paid by the owner &f the vehide i.e. Tractor No. C.G. 10 A/ 0841. (7) Therefore, the asrarcl shatl reiroiin intact, howwer liability to pay the amount involved in the awarel will be ofthe twmer/respondent No.10 (non- appiicant No.2). »y<9- Sd'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge