•SSSSS'S-'KKsfiSfsSS'SSS^SSWS'S.K KfsSyilS^tcSSSSSgis '•g) SSi] IN THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL [C] N0. 75 /2011 MISC. APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEmCLES ACT. 1988 APPELLANT "INSURER ^ ^ y <>t?-^Sr'^yv oy .% /,\^ RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS 1 Reliance General Insurance Company Linuted Through , : its General Manager, ReUance General Insurance Cowpany Limited 301, 302 Corporate House 169 RNT Market, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (M.P.) VERSUS Gurubari Bal Wd/o Late Ghasiyaram. Kenwat, aged about 42 years, 2. Flrtu Ram S/o Late Ghaslyaram Kenwat, aged about 22 years, 3, Ku. Firtln D/o Late Ghasiyaram -"^ Kenwat, aged about 18 years, ^fr.4. Ku. Sumta D/o Late Ghasiyaram Kenwat, aged about 14 years, ^ DMVER-CUM- OWNER ^. Ku. Anlta D/o Late Ghaslyaram Kenwat, aged about 02 years, 6. Ku. Sangeeta D/o Late Ghasiyaram Kenwat, aged about '!.**} 07 years, Resppndents No. 4- to ^ betng mlnor represented through mother Smt. Gumbari Bai, AU R/o vmage - Hsld, Police Statlon and Tahsil - Kasdol, District - Ralpur (C.G.) 7. Pltamber Patel, S/o Ramlal Patel, aged about 40 years, R/o Pisid, PoUce StaUon and Tahsll - Kasdol, Dist-lct - Ralpur (C.G.) ^^ APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 3,30.000/- COURT FEE Rs. 15/- sss^" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISeARH : BILASPUR Divlsion Bench: Hon'ble Shri I.M.Quddusi. & Hon'bte ShriiVianindra IVIohan Shrlvastava. JJ. APPELLANT RESPQNDENTS I.A.C.No.75/2011 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Gurubari Bai and others APPEAL UNDERSECTION iraOFMOTOR VEHICUES ACT.19® Present: - Shri Saurabh Sharma, counsel for the appeliant. Shri S.K.Guha, counsel fbr respondents 1 to 6. ... . Shri Ravindra Agrawa!, counsel for respondent No:7. ORDERfORAU --...-.......-...:-^^ (Passed on 9sft of May, 2011) Perl.M. QUDDUSI. J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited against the impugned award of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar in claim case No.11/09, in so ter as it relates to the tiability part only. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 12/1/09 at about 4:00 P.M., the respondent No.1 while coming from Amakoha on the Tractor bearing registration No. CG 04 DB/7792, drove rashly and negligently and the deceased - Ghasiyaram Kenwat, who was sltting beside respondent No-1-Pitambar Patel, fell down from the Tractor and crushed under the wheels of the tractor, resulting in death. The claimants, who are the wife ahd chlldren of the deceased, had filed claim application under Section 166 oftheAct; 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.18,70,000/- on the ground that they 2 were dependent on the deceased, who was sole ea'rning member in the family, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. 4. Learned Clalms Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record held that the ctaimants are entltted for compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- under varlous heads and the appellant-lnsurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. 5. Leamed counsei for the appellant has submttted that the Claims Tribunal in para 12 of the impugnsd award has given a finding that there was breach of insurance policy desplte that ihe iiabHity has been fastened upon the insurance company. 6. We have heard leamed counsel for the parties. We have perused the records of the Claims Tribunal, the impugned award as welt as fte insurance pollcy. 7. Leamed counsel for the appetlant submitted thert there was no seating capacity in the Tractor. Therefore, the deceased who was traveiing as a passenger/gratuitous passenger, the insurance company should not have been held responsible to pay compensation. 8. The insurance poticy of the vehicie / Tractor (Exhibit 0/2) shows that the following premiums were taken according to their IMT conclitjons. / Liability Premium Rupees Compulsory PA cover to Owner Driver of CSI Rs.iocy- The Legal LiabBity to pereons empioyed in connection With Operatlons &/or maintsnance of the insured Rs.25/- aesats^vww^r ^. l^'l^ 9. Though the Tractor w^s not having the seatlng capacity to cany pa^engers but the Insurance Company had insural one passenger besides the driver and cleaner / other employees. On this, opportunity was given to the leamed counsel for theappellant to enquire the above terms l.e. IMT-37 and according to hls instructions / endorsement, IMT-37 is to be used where the vehicle was not deslgned for carrying passengers e.g. goods carryng vehicles - Rs.75/- per passenger and the vehicles deslgned for carriage of passengers e.g. Bus is Rs.125/- per passenger. ; In the instant case, the Tractor is the vehicle not des^ned for camage of passengers. According to the leamed counsel for the appeftant, the endorsement IMT-37 is used where Legal Liability for accidents to non-fare paying passengers, owner ofgoods, who are not employees of the insured, carried in a goods carrying vehicle and fhe premium is Rs.75/- per passenger. 10. In the instant matter, the deceased was siffing as a gratuitous passenger and since there was contract of insurance, whether there was seating capacity or not, would not be seen as IMT-37 itself provides that Rs.75/- per passenger can be charged for non-fare payfng passengers, not designed for carrylng passer^CTs. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was breach of policy Vehicle - Paid Drh'er No.of Persons 1 (IMT-40) Legal Liabilityto pereons employed io connection with Operations &/or maintenance ofttie insured Vehicle - Cleaner/conductor/coolies Not exceeding 6 in number (excluding driver) No. cf Psrsons 1 (IMT-39) Rs5&(- Legal Liability ftw accklents to Non fare paying passengers including Employees of !he Insured who are not Workmen under fhe Workmwi's Compensation Act No. of Persons 1 (IMT-375 RS.TS- -^'3*"?^-^-. :f":i£~~~^<St. conditions and the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly beld that there was breach of poiicy conditions. 11. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to cost. 12. The cross objection has also been filed by the respondents challenging para 12 ofthe appeal. * •*• 13. Since, we have aiready held that the finding tn para 12 Is perverae, therefore, cross objection is also dfsposed off in the above terms. The amount which is deposited by the cross obja^or, shall be refunded to him. _—-^ \ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava LM-Quddusi | ^ """""""' judge' Dwpti