HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8FVR M.A. No.719/2006 APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENTS APPLICANT No. 1 APPLICANT N0. 2 NON-APPLICANT N0. 1. National Insurance Company Lunited through its Divisional Manager, Divisionsd OfGce, B-l, Taha Complex Kng Road, No. 1, Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Ram Prasad S/o Harishchandra, aged 25 years, caste Nagwanshi 2. Parasnath Ram S/o Harishchandra, aged 38 years, bofh are R/o Dhodheedan, Tah. Kunkuri, Distt. Jaspur (CG) 3. R.T. Kos Gregoi Tirkey, S/o Johan Tirkey, aged 40 years, Caste Uraon, R/o Vill. Dhodheedan, Tah. Kunkuri Distt. Jaspur (CG) M.A. No. 720/2006 / APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENTS 1. APPLICANT No. 1 APPLICANT N0. 2 2 NON-APPLICANT N0. 1. National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, B-l, Taha Complex Ring Road, No. 1, BUaspur (CG) Versus Mukund Ram S/o Odaro, aged 38 years, Caste Nagwanshi Smt. Sushila R/o Mukund Ram aged 38 years, caste Nagwanshi, both are R/o Dhodheedan, Tah. Kunkuri, Distt. Jaspur (CG) R.T. Kos Gregoi Tirkey, S/o Johan Tirkey, aged 40 years, Caste Uraon, R/o Vill. Dhodheedan, Tah. Kunkuri Distt. Jaspur (CG) M.A. No. 721/2006 APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENTS APPLICANT National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, B-l, Taha Complex Ring Road, No. 1, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Mohan Lal S/o Shiv Shanker, aged 12 years, caste Nagwanshi, through natiiral guardian Shiv Shanker S/o Lohar Sai, aged 40 years, caste Nagvanshi, R/o NON-APPLICANT N0. 1. Dhodheedan, Tah. Kunkuri, Distt Jaspur (CG) 3. R.T. Kos Gregoi Tirkey, S/o Johan Tirkey, aged 40 years, Caste Uraon, R/o Vill. Dhodheedan, Tah. Kunkuri Distt. Jaspur (CG) SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESENT:- Shri Dashrath Gupta, Adv. for the appellant. Shri Jeet Patel, Adv. for respondents no. 1 and 2. Shri A.R.Yadav, Adv. for respondent no. 3. ORAL ORDER (19-4-2010) 1. M.A. No. 719/2006, M.A. No, 720/2006 and M.A. No. 721/2006 are being disposed of by this common order as all these appeals arise out of the same accident. 2. These appeals have been directdd by the National Insurance Company against the award dated 27-2-2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur in Claim Case No. 72/2004, Claim Case No. 73/2004 and M.A. No. 93/2004 preferred by the claimants under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming different compensation against the owner/driver and the appellant. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 4. Harish Chandra (since deceased), Bhanupratap (since deceased) and Mohanlal (injured) were traveUing in the tractor and trolley bearing registration no. CG-14-A-0437 and CG-14-A-0438 respectively. On 27-6-2004 at about 2.00 p.m. the said tractor trolley turned turtle by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor as a result of which Harish Chandra and Bhanupratap died and .-' Mohanlal sustained injuries. The injured person as well as the legal representatives of the deceased persons have filed claim applications under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act claiming different compensation against the owner/ driver and the appellant. 5. The appellant insurance company denied its liability to pay corapensation as the deceased persons and the injured person were travelling in the tractor trolley as passengers which are not covered under the policy. 6. Leamed Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made held the deceased persons and injured person were travelling in the tractor as passengers; the vehicle is insured, passed the impugned award holding also the appellant/Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation to the claimants jointly and severely along with the respondent-driver/owner. 7. Shri Dashrath Gupta, leamed counsel for the appellant would contend that indisputably "the deceased persons and the injured person were travelling in the tractor trolley as passengers, the tractor is not meant for carrying passengers nor any policy has been issued undertaking the risk of such passengers by entering into special contract with the owner after taking premium therefor, and as such learned Tribunal has erred in holding fhe appeUant liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for fhe respondents supported the award and submitted that in the facts and circiimstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon fhe appellant/insurance company and the saine deserves to be ypheld. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned and record of the Tribunal. 10. As per claim petitions filed by the claimants, Harishchandra, Bhanupratap and Mohanlal were sitting in fhe fa-actor trolley as a passenger. The fact that the deceased and the injured were sitting in the tractor trolley ~ has not been disputed by the driver / owner of the tractor trolley. This fact is otherwise also established by the evidence in the case led by the claimants. It is also not the case of the owner/driver that the Insurance Company has issued any policy covering the risk ofpassengers travelling in the tractor trolley. 11. As per Rule 28 of Rules of Road Regulations, 1989) a drivsr when driving a tractor is prohibited to carry or allow any person to be carried on tractor and driver of goods carriage is prohibited to carry in the driver's cabin more number than that is mentioned in the registration certificate and shall not carry passengers for hire or reward. 12. The Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatam.m.a and Others1, has held in para 19 of its judgment fhat owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle. Admittedly, there is no cabin in the Tractor trolley, the sitting capacity of the ta-actor is only one i.e. driver. 13. Rule 28 of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 prohibits travelling of any person in the trolley. In such a situation, even the tractor attached with trplley if satisfies the definition ofgoods carriage, in view ofjudgment of Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatam.ma and Others1, the passengers travelling in the tractor trolley are not covered. 14. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that leamed Tribunal went wrong in fastening the Uability upon the appellant/ insurance company for payment of conipensation to the claimantsjointly and severely with the respondent/ owner. 15. For fhe foregoing, the appeals deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The impugned award to the extent of appellant's Uability is set aside. The claimants are free to recover the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal from the respondent-driver/owner. 16. In the facts and ciccumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge 2008 (1) SCC 423