v <• IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATnsSARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL fc) N0. o OF 2010 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 A6AINST THE ORbER/AWARb DATE& 22.03.2009- PASSEb IN C.T. Js)O.M5/2009^y LEARNEO MOTOR ACCI&ENT ^ Appellant Owner J< Thanwar Lal Yadav S/o Sonchand Yadav aged 49 Years Cost Rawat, R/o Village Maroud, P.S. Tumgaon Police Chouki Sirpur, bistrict Mahasamund C.6. / /briver 2; Shatrughan Yadav S/o Bisouha Ram, ^' Aged 29 Cost Rawat, R/o Village Maroud, P.S. Tumgaon Police Chouki Sirpur, District Mahasamund C.&. Versus R.R. ^......M.D&^I0..^.:...^ P»^"K''"v "•" .cff-./i.'.Se.twy^ef^ ";::.••:. ./7G:t/./.0 Respondents Claimants >^ Smt. Lata Dhruw W/o Late Awadh Ram Aged 23 Year-s. ^\ Ku. Vimal bhruw S/o Late Awadh Ram Aged 05 Year-s. -?"r Tameshwar S/o Late Awadh Ram Aged 03 Years. z" ^ Ku. Sanjana S/o Lafe Awadh Ram Aged 02 Years. Respondents No. 2 to 4 are Through there Mother Smt. Lata Dhruw W/o Late Awadh Rom. / ^ >K Smt. Bhagwateen Dhruw W/o Jagtu Ram Aged 51 Years \ ' All respondent R/o Maroud, P.S. Tumgaon Police Chouki Sirpur, bistrict - Mahasamund C.6. / Insurer » ^.3«3f Relince Seneral Insurance Company Ltd. Shop No. 412-413 4th floor Ravibhawan Jaistambh Chouk 492001 Raipur District- Raipur C.6. Hoa'ble G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ Thanwar Lal Yadav and atiofher Vs. Siat. Lata Dhruw and anoftier .A(Ct No^4fiM2Q10 Shatpaghan Yadav aud aaother Vs. Sm.t. Lata Dhruw and aaofher Appearance: Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Counsel for fh.e appeUaats, Mr. Deepak Jain., Counsel for respondents 1 to 6 in M.A(C ). No. 461/2010. Mr. Sarfraj Khaa, Coiuisel for respondents 1 to 5 in M.A(C) No.460/2010. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Coimsel for respondent no.6 ui M.A.(C). No.469/2010 & respondent No.7 M.A(C).461/10. These tavo appeals have been filed by the owner aiid driver against the unpugned awand dated 22.03.2010 passed separately by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasaiaund whereby fhe Uability has been fastened on the owner to pay coinpensation. Since botii Uiese appeals arise out of the same accideat inet wiih by tbe Vehicle Swaraj Majda bearuis B;KIt u* -i?^BlT KM-&AU;+iO^^^^^TSE:t • ^^-r? >Q ^ •y"^ 3. Regn.No.04-J/8442, they are beiag disposed of by fhis comiaon order. M.A(C).No.460/2010 relates to Claiin Case No. 45/2009 {Smt. Lata Dhruv and others -vs- Shatruhan Yadav and others} ia which a& amount of Rs.5,15,000/- has been awarded and M.A.(C ). No.461/2010 relates to Clatna Case No.16/2009- (Smt. Sunita Bai Netam. -vs- Satruhan Yadav and others} in which an amouiit of Rs.3,10,000/- has been awarded. Brief facts of fhe case as per the version of fhe claiinants are fhat on 13.12.2008 deceased Jeevan Lal Netain aad Awadhram Dhruv had gone to work as labourers alongwith ofhers ta Swaraj Majda bearing Regn.No.C.G.04-J/8442 for unloading fhe paddv at Krishi Upaj Mandi, Mahascanund After unloading the Paddy, they were retuming to their vfllage Maraud froai Mah.asam.und in the said vehicle. On fhe way, fbe said vehicle, which was being driven by non- applicaat no.l Shatrughan Yadav in a rash aiid negligent taanner, struck again.st a tree situated on fhe road side, as a resiilt of which, deceased Awadhram. aad Jeevaalal died ia fhe said accident. The claimazits being legal representatives/ dependents of fhe deceased Awadhram and Jeevaa Lal have filed separate claim. petitions u/s 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for fhe award of com.pensations. Tbe leamed Claiins Tnbunal havine regaid to the facts situation, niaterial aud evidence on record has held that ffce Vebicle Swaraj Majda bearmg Regn.No.C.G.04-J/8442 driven by non-appUcant no.l, in a rash aad negligent niaiiner, rn.et with accident, as a result of which, deceased Awadhram Dhruv aad Jeevan Lal bofh died; there was breach of conditions of the insurance poUcy aad fhe claimants of deceased Awadhram Dhruv aad Jeevan Lal are entitled to receive a total coiapensation of ['S'" fc;Sfe;; ISs ''~/"B::"'^"T~'" "'feJ' - •;*-Silstt:" •"''.1& 51e'i9. '"""t•i '% 9 g ^y ~M :^j •i^ Ri Vi' Rao Rs.5,15,000/- aud Rs.3,10,000/- respectiyely from the owner Thaawar Yadav. We have heard learued counsel for fhe parties and have also gone through the recoids ofthe Tribunal. So far as it relates to breach of conditions of fhe insurance poUcy, a perusal of fhe dnving Ucense shows fbat an. endorseinent of LMV and HGV along-with authorizatiou to drive the transport vehicle is already inentioned, therefore, the Tribuaal has wrongty held that ftie driver of the offending vehicle was not having vaiid aad effective drivia^ Ucense. However, a perusal of fhe impugned award shows that fhe Tribunal has wrongty mentioned ttiat no extra preiniuia was paid for 3 persons. In fact, tiie deceased persons were not traveUng by sitting iaside tfae cabin offhe vehicle but out side fhe cabiu, fh.eiefoic, their risk was not covered by fhe Insuraace Policy. On ttus grouad, we are of the opinion that ttie Insiu-ance Coinpany is not liable to pay compensation. In view of the above discussion, ffae appeals deserye to be and are^hereby disinissed. No order as to cost(s) Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^ 11 BBCTSOBBWireSte