^ M E IN THB HON'BLE HI^H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MisceUaneous Appeal JC} No. l?°?c^- /2007 APPELLANT M/s Hora Transport Company Limited, Fafadih, Raipur (C.G.) (OWNERt VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) ^ ,. ^-^i^ ~St\^r^ws Surendra Bhoi ?|b Sukhilal,. Bhoi,.? aged about 48 years, R/b Tumgaon Road, Gulahan Chowk, b^——°v"^ Mahasamund, 'Distt. Mahasamund L;'. ^-^^"^•'WM' (C-G-) <CLAIMANT) presented by si».^^^.-'^...... .........^^•^fV 2)^ Meetlal @ Jeetram Sahu S/o Mehattar Sahu, aged about 22 years, R/o Village- Banarsi, Thana- Arang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (DRIVERt United India Insurance Company Limited, Tara Complex, G.E. Road, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (INSURERl MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994 The appellant begs to submit as under: . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 1394 of2007 APPELLANT M/s Hora Transport Company Limited. Versus RESPONDENTS Surendra Bhoi and two others. SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT:- Shri Anant Bajpai, Advocate for the appellant, None for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior AdYocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (25-8-2011) This is owner's appeal against the award dated 31st July, 2007, passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. 40/2006 tion. 2. As against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- claimed by respondentl No.l by filing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident dated 22.04.2006, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.22,000/- as compensation against the appellant and respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.l exonerating respondent N6.3 United India Insurance Company,,Limited from its liability tb pay compensation to respondent No.l. ,^c^^, "^'^ '8'^ N ^feiiiia i 'v/ -^^:^- 3. The learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing No. C.G. 04 ZC-0868; respondent No.l was sitting in the truck in breach of policy conditions and insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation; assessed and awarded the aforesaid amount as compensation along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment, holding the appellant and respondent No.2 liable for payment of compensation. 4. Shri Anant Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: respondent No.S/insurance company has utterly failed to discharge its burden to prove breach of policy conditions; has utterly failed to prove respondent No.l/claimant was sitting in the truck as gratuitous passenger; and thus the learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensatlon. 5. On the other hand, Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal for respondent No.3/ United India Insurance Company Limited would submit: respondent No.l/claimant was sitting in the truck as gratuitous passenger; the insurance company has not covered ^yKiSk -^ ^y any risk of passenger by entering into special contract with the appellant and by charging extra premium therefor, and therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 7. A bare perusal of the claim application would reveal; the respondent No.l/claimant has not stated anywhere in the claim application that he was sitting in the truck as labourer of the truck. The appellant, in its written statement, has denied the fact that respondent No.l/claimant was Hamal earning Rs.100/- per day. In fact, he has also denied the factum of accident. F.I.R. filed iri the case would reveal: 10 - 12 persons were sitting in the truck at the time of accident. There is nothing in the F.I.R., above persons or any 'of them were/was sitting in the truck in his capacity as labourer of truck. 8. The appellant has examined one Kanhailal (N.A.W.2), Manager, who has deposed in para 6 of his statement that he does not know whether or not respondent No.l/claimant was sitting in the truck as labourer. Further, the app&llant, in his written statement, has denied the fact that respondent -../ No.l/claimant was labourer and was earning Rs.100/- as Hamal per day. It is trite law, no amount of evidence can be looked into without pleading. 9. In view of above, there is no iota of doubt in my mind that respondent No.l/claimant was sitting in the truck as gratultous passenger. 10. A bare perusal of the policy filed in the case would reveal; the policy is a package policy, covers the risk of third party as well as 7 employees and does not cover the risk of gratuitous passengers inasmuch as no premium was charged by the insurance company covering the risk of gratuitous passengers sitting in the truck. 11. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner ofthe vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co_Ltd_v. Vedwati & others, (2007) 9 SCC 486 in paragraph 6 held as under: "6; .......... The difference in the language of 'goods vehicle' as appearing in the old Act and 'goods carriage' in the Act is of significance. A bare reading of the prbvisions makes it clear that the legi^lative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from cariying any ^t.. -"•^ passenger. This is clear from the expression 'in addition to passengers' as contained in the definition of 'goods vehicle' in the old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used 'goods carriage' is solely for the carriage of 'goods'. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar to Clause (11) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of 'public service vehicle9. 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 compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the WC Act'). There is no reference to any passenger in 'goods carriage9. 10. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor.?? 13. Although simply on the ground that vehicle was overloaded the insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability but in the instant case respondent No.l/claimant was sitting in< the truck as gratuitous passenger. In view of ;:^- -/ above, the insurance company cannot be held liable and the ultimate result is the same. 14. In view of the above and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred case, the argument advanced by Shri Anant Bajpai, the learned counsel for the appellant, is devoid of merit. 15. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. AgarwaS Judge