HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.C No.1606 of 2009 - ^7 (y/ APPELLANT RESPONDENTS APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Hori Lal VERSUS Adhar Singh & others & M.A.CNo.1509 of 2009 Adhar Singh & another VERSUS Hori Lal & another Award for consideration Ifip'ble Shri Raieev Gupta, CJ. J A-^-T^^- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge |2-/12/2011 Ppst for pronouncement on )^ /12/2011 "Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge |^—/12/2011 r" ,'y ^:^sx^ (^ '%. ^v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.CNo.1606 of 2009 APPELLANT/ Claimant RESPONDENTS Non-claimant (Driver) (Owner) (Insurer) Hori Lal S/o Sukh Lal Gond, aged about 21 years, R/o Village Pokhari Dand Naka Thana Marwahi Tehsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1. Adhar Singh S/o Mahipat Gond, agedabout20years 2. Shiv Lal S/o Tilak Ram Gond aged about 47 years Both resident of village Bhadara Tola Naka Thana and Tehsil Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Division Office, First Floor Rama Tread Centre, In front of Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (CG) Present : Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri FS Khare, Advocate for respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal with Shri P. Dutta, Advocates for respondent No. 3. APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS & M.A.C No.1509 of 2009 1. Adhar Singh S/o Mahipat Singh, aged about 20 years (Driver) 2. Shiv Lal S/o Tilakram Gond aged about 47 years (Owner) Both R/o village Bhadratola Naka PS & Tehsil Marvahi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1. Hori Lal S/o Sukh Lal Gond, aged about 21 years, R/o Village Pokhridand Naka PS Marvahi, Tehsil Marvahi, District Bilaspur (CG). (Claimant) 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Division Office, 1 Floor Rama Trade Centre, In front of Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (CG) •^ \^'\ ~^: l-^^2^fy ap APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, CJ & Hon'ble Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. Present : Shri FS Khare, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Sudhir Agrawal with Shri P Dutta, Advocates for respondent No. 2. AWARD (Delivered on 12 /12/2011) Per: N.K. Agarwal, J 1. This award deals with both the appeals i.e. MAC No. 1606/09, filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, and MAC No. 1509/09, filed by the driver and owner against the award dated 01.09.2009, passed by Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur, in claim case No. 11/08. 2. As against compensation of Rs. 31,15,0007- claimed by the appellanVclaimant by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.10.07, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,08,800/- in favour appellant/claimant and as against the driver and owner of offending vehicle along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment exonerating the respondent No. 3/The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. -The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by ^ (o the driver of Tractor-trolley bearing registration No. CG-10-ZA- 5751 and CG-10-A-5752; appellanVclaimant sustained multiple injuries in the said accident; respondent/The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. not liable for payment of compensation as the Tractor in question was insured for agriculture purpose but the same was used for commercial purpose at the time of accident and claimant was sitting in the Tractor as gratuitous passenger; awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,08,800/- as compensation in favour of claimant along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment against appellants in MAC No. 1509/09 i.e. owner & driver of the vehicle. 4. Shri FS Khare, learned counsel appearing for thedriver and owner of Tractor in question, while not disputing the risk of gratuitous passenger sitting in the Tractor-trolley is not covered under the policy of insurance (Ex. P/4), contended the claima.nt Horilal was not sitting in the Tractor-trolley but was a pedestrian which is evident from the statement of claimant as well as witnesses examined by the owner and driver of the vehicle, but the Tribunal, ignoring the above evidence, has erroneously held claimant was sitting in the Tractor-trolley as gratuitous passenger; Tractor-trolley was used for other than agriculture purposes, and exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. //^ ^ <&:^.i ^-^./ ..e^ 5. Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant vehemently argued: the Tribunal while computing amount of compensation towards future loss of earning capacity, has erred in assessing the income of claimant Horilal as Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum and in awarding low amount of compensation of Rs. 4,08,800/- only which deserves to be suitably enhanced. 6. Per contra, Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent/The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. supported the award impugned and submitted since claimant was sitting in the' Tractor as gratuitous passenger, insurance company is not statutory liable to cover the risk of such passenger. The Tractor was also being used for commercial purposes in violation of policy conditions, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation and the award needs no interference. 7. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned including records of the court below. 8. We shall first examine whether or not the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the respondent No.S/The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. from its liability to paycompensation to the claimant. 9. It is settled law that provisions of the MV Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of the vehicle to get his vehicle " insured for any passenger traveling in a goods carriage vehicle and the insurer would have no liability therefor. ^y^s^^ ^r .-.-:.-";\ ^::^ /^-s"-'-^ '•% V ^ s'\ ^' €b '^.. ^ ^ 1. However, an owner of a vehicle intends to cover himself from other risks; it is permissible to enter into a contract of insurance in which event the insurer would be bound to reimburse the owner of the vehicle strictly in terms thereof. A contract of insurance which is not statutory in nature should be construed like any other contract. 10. It is not in dispute the policy of insurance (Ex. P/4) does not cover the risk of gratuitous passenger sitting in the Tractor- trolley. 11. In the absence of any contract covering the risk of gratuitous passenger, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by the passenger sitting in the Tractor as gratuitous passenger. 12. Now reverting to the facts of the case, FIR (Ex. P/3), lodged, filed and relied upon by the claimant hlorilal shows claimant along with several other persons were sitting in the Tractor- trolley. Neither in the claim petition nor in the written statement filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle it has been pleaded that FIR do not contain signature of claimant Horilal, on the contrary, claimant Horilal himself filed and proved the FIR (Ex. P/3) to prove the said accident. 13. The Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla & others1 has held : once the part of the „ contents of the document is admitted for evidence, the party ' 2007 (13) SCC 476 —^^ ^ i.l- "w bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and content that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof, had not been proved. 14. When the matter is examined in the context of above broad features of the case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court as referred hereinabove, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held appellanVclaimant was sitting in the Tractor as gratuitous passenger and the Tractor was being used for commercial purposes at the time of accident and has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation on the above ground. 15. So far as question of sufficiency or otherwise of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case is concerned, true, the claimant Horilal pleaded he used to earn Rs. 6000/- per month, but failed to substantiate the same by leading cogent and clinching evidence in this regard. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the approach of Tribunal in discarding claimant's income pleaded in the claim petition. 16. The Tribunal, on its own estimate, assessed the income of the claimant Horilal as Rs. 3000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum which in the facts situation of the case cannot be found fault with. As per claimant's own case, he sustained 60 percent permanent disability and is aged about 21 years; the Tcibunal assessed yearly loss of income of the claimant as Rs. 21,600/-; applied multiplier of 18 which is atso maximum, and G assessed the compensation on account of loss of future earning capacity as Rs. 3,88,800/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 20,000/- on other heads and thus has awarded a totat sum of Rs. 4,08,800/- as compensation to the claimant Horilal, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be termed as inadequate. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no scope for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 17. For the forgoing, both the appeal i.e. MAC No. 1606/09, filed by the claimant, and MAC No. 1509/09, filed by the driver and owner of Tractor, being devoid of substance, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No order asto cost. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu