IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAPSUR APPELLANT ^' y" Misc. Appeal {C} No. 34 \ /2011 _. . . 1^'8^m!H I^.^'I^N' Shriram General Insurance(^'^nff^'r>^A'^»^AA ^vw Through Manager ^ /n ow^. Industrial Area ^^r .^'u^ inrougr ..^^" ^ 1003-F/8, RIICO Industri ^^\ ^y ^^ Sitapura Jaipur (Rajasthan) qiy.^y .^f Branch Office- ^€<^ <%<";v Branch Office- In front of Ganga Nursing Home, Chaitanya Nagar, 3rd Floor, Dimrapur Road, Raigarh (Insurer) RESPQNDENTS z 1 ^:^ A ,*-^s ''/:•/.:.€> "<^^"> v^- ^^' } •^ ^ ^ n ^ VERSUS 1) Mrs. Santashi Sarthi W/o Late Kanhaiyya Sarthi, aged abouf 35 years, ,2) Ku. Keshri Sarthi D/o Late Kanhaiyya Sarthi, aged about 14 years (Minor) •A 3) Numitra 'Sarth^ D/o Late Kanhaiyya Sarthi, aged about 11 years, (Minor) 4) Suneeta Sarthi D/o Late Kanhaiyya ^ Sarthi, aged about 08 years (Minor) 5) Narendra Sarthi S/o Late Kanhaiyya Sarthi, aged about 05 years (Minor) through mother Mrs. Santoshi Sarthi W/o Late Kanhayya Sarthi All R/o Village .and post Sapo, Tahsil and Thana Dabhra, Distt. Janjgeer-Champa (C.G.) (CLAIMANTSl ..^) J) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN 173 QFTHEJttOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994 Sampatlal Yadav S/o Kushwaram Yadav, R/o Bajirao, Maharapara Raigarh (C.G.) (DRIVER) Moh. Firoz Khan S/o B. Hussain, R/o Bajirao, Maharapara Raigarh (C.G.) (OWNER) mOH CGU'RT OF QHHATTISQAHH AT BILASPUR &I. A. (Ct KO. 333 OF 2011 APPBLLANT RESPOHDBiiITS Vs. Slirlram Geiieral lasuraace Mrs. Saiiodaia Sartfai aiid ofhers M. A. fCl WO. 341 OF 2011 APPBLLAHT Shi'ifc'aQi Geaeral Insuraace Vs. RESPONDBKTS Mrs. Saatoshi Sarthi aod ofhers M. A. iCi N0. 342 Or 2011 APPBLLANT Shriram General Ii^ui'aoce Vs. RBSPONDBNTS Mrs. Agni Bai and ottiers APPEALS UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 199d DB: Hoa»bleStoi I. M. Qaddusi 8& Hon'ble Bhri G. Miahajnddin, J*J. Present: Shri Devershi Thakur, counsel for fhe appellaiit Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for fiie respondents/ Claimaiits. None for the rcspoiident/nOB-appMcaat No,2 (Owner), ORAL ORDER (Passed oa 23rd day of September, 2011) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. No oiie appears on behalf of fhe respoadenl^owiier fhough. iicrtice by paper piiblicatfciu 1s serwd. However, leanied couasel Ifor fhe appellaat/insurao.ee Company aiid respoiidents/ claimao.ts are present. ThetefoKc, we proceed ji^aiiist the respoiident/owner ex-parte. 2. Siiice fhe above appeals have been tiled by ffae appellant/Insui'aace CoBipaay a^galiist fhe coiuiiion award dated ^;^^--^, :s-"%; ^ea^. 1 •:.;&3^3| j ^^^y ^ 09-12-2010 passed by the Pourth Additiojaal Motor Accident Clamis Tribufial, F.T.C., Raigai-h ia Clami Case Nos. 62/2009, 63/2009 and 65/2009 ln so tar as it relates to fastening the liability to pay cojjapeiisatioa to flie clamiaiits 011 tlxe appeUaat, fhey are being disposed ofby flils comiiioa order. M.A.(C) No. 333/2011 retates to Ciaim Case No. 62/2<X)8 (Mrs. Sahodara Sarthi & others vs. SarnpatSai Yadav & others); M.A.(C) No. 341/2011 reiates to Claim Case No. 65/2009 (Mrs. Santoshi Sarthi & others Vs. Sampatiai Yadav & others) and IVI.A.(C) No. 342/2011 relates to Claim Case No. 63/2009 (Mrs. Agni Bai & others Vs. SampattaS Yadav & others). 3. Bnef facts of fhe case as per fhe verslon of the claima£rts that on 27-10-2009 at 5-00 p.m, deceased persons xiamely Gopi Sarthi, Shaiikar Cbouhan aud Kaohatya Sartibd were wajitiag at Bus Staad, Gopalpur for boardiag a bus going towaxds Raigarli. At fhat time, a Dumper bearmg registratfcin No. JH 09-E/7223 owned by non-applicaiit No.2 was brought by jEion-appIicaat No. 1 aad all fhe deceased persons along wifh ofhers were sittmg iti fhe said D-fuiiper, On fhe way, at about 6-30 p.ni^ near vlilage Basigursiya Palighat, the said dumper which was belag drivea by iioii-appiicao.t No. 1 Sampaflal ia a rash aad negligeat laaiiner overturiied, as a resiilt of wliich the deceased persons Gopi Sarthi, Shaakar Chouhaa arid Kaahaiya Sarflii died ia the saM accldent. The legal representatives of Gopi Saifhi, Shaiikar Chouhaa aiid Kaiiliaiya Sarthi have filed separate clayii petitions respectively under Section 166 of the Motor VelMcles Act^ 1988 (for sliort <the Acty for fhe award of a total compeiisations of Rs. 21,10,000/- m claim case No. 62/2009, Rs. 16,30,000/- in claim case No. 63/2009 and Rs. 16,30,000/- in clalm case No. 65/2009 on various heads, f 4. Leaoied claims Tnbunal has held that the ofendmg dumper joiet with aix accideixt, as a result of which deceased / persons died, fhere was no breach of condlfck>ns of iasucaace poMcy by nou-applicaats No, 1 & 2 aad the claMjaaiits are eatitled to receive a total coiiipensatlon ofRs.7,30,136/- in clami case No. w// 62/2009, Rs. 5,80,104/- in clalm case No. 63/2009 and Rs.5,80,104/- ia claim Case No. 65/2009 from the aon- appllcaiits jomfly aad severally. 5. We have heard learned eounsel for fhie parties aiid have also perused the records of Uie lower Court aad fomid tliat seatmg capacity of fhe vehlcle (Duiupe^ la questioa waa tvro iaclusive of driver. The dec-eased persons were sitting ioi fhe TroUey (Dala) of tiie veliicle Le. back side of the driver's cabiu iii wliicti fhe coal was already loaded. Therefore, beiiig no seatmg capacity ia fhe TroUey (Dala), fhe deceased persons were aUowed to sit iii tiie TroUey (Dala) whlch cleaiiy amounts to breach of condltions of flie tasui'aaee policy. Hence, fhe iasuraiice Coinpany caiinot be held liable to pay couipensation as it was fhe total risk of the owiier aiid driver of ffae velAicle wlio allowed fhe deceased to sit as gratultous passengers at tlie place which was uot nieaat fbr slttliig. < ^' 6. In view of the above, we aUow tliese appeals, aet aside fhat part of tfae loipugned awards by which fhe appeUant/Insuraace Compaiiy has beea fastened fhe liabUily to pay c-ompensatioii to fhe claimaiite. The fiiidmg m respect of issue No. 3 "wlie&er there was breach of conditions of flie iiisuraiice pollcy^ whicti lias been answered iti uegatlve fhat is agaiiist the appellaiit/Insui-aace Compaay, is also set aside. However/it will be open for fhe claimaats to realize tiie aiiiount of cofiipeiisatlon from tibie owiier offtie vehlcle (Diioiper). 7. The aiaount wliich is already jji deposit shaU be allowed to be wifhdrawu by flie appeUant/ Insuraiice CoBipaay. 8. In the result, thie appeals aiie aUowed. No order as to c-oste. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddia Judge Kw