HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAroi AT BILASPUR MACNo.1479 OF 2009 AppeWants Owner & Driver ' Respondents Claimants : 1. Rajendra Prasad, S/o Chhannu Ram, aged about 60 years, R/o Ward No. 1, Near Kali Mandir, Village Duddhi, District Sonbhadra (UP). 2. Satyanarayan, S/o Shri Kanhai, through Rajendra Prasad, S/o Chhannu Ram, aged about 60 years, R/o Ward No. 1, Near Kali Mandir, Village Duddhi. District Sonbhadra Versus 1. Smt. Basmati, W/o Ramjit Gond, aged about 20 years, R/o village Peeparpan, Polfoe Station Sanawal, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja (CG). 2. Branch Manager, The Untted India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Offioe, Patel Nagar, Murdhwa, Renucot, District Sonbhadra (UP). APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, (SB: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. ,1.1 Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for appeUants. None for respondent No. 1 . Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ORALORDER (Passed on 28th day ofApril, 2010) 1. This is owner and driver's appeal directed against the award dated 28.08.2009, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Ramanujganj. Distt. Surguja (for short Tribunal') in claim case No. 24/08. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under : i. On 13.03.2008, the respondent No. 1, i.e. claimant while coming from Talkeshwarpur to Peeparpan alongwith 11 other persons fn the Jeep toearing f^ registration No. UP-64-B-5961 as gratuitous passenger sitting in the Jeep, the said Jeep turned turtle and pursuant to which the respondent No. 1 sustained muttiple injuries. ii. The respondent No. 1 filed an application under Sectton 166 of MV Act claiming Rs. 2,53,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustalned by her in the said accident. iii. The appellants/owner & driver <rf the offending vehtele by filing their written statement, denied their liabMity and specifically pleaded that slnce the vehtete is insured the liability would be of the insurance company to compensate the respondent No. 1. iv. The respondent No. 2/insurance company by filing its written statement denied its liability on the ground that the said Jeep was being plied by the appellant/owner in breach of condition of policy and the respondent No. 2 is not liable to indemnifythe insured. v. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence ted, material placed and submissions made bythe parties, held the appellant No. 2 responsibte for the said accident; assessed the compensation as Rs. 3©,000/- awarded against the appellants exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. 3. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, leamed wunsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has fallen an error in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. 4. On the other hand, Shri HB Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/tnsurance company, supported the award and would submit that in the facts snd circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly ©(onerated ...!"\ ^' £ flsa 1.'^ "^sy 6. 8. the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation inasmuch as the respondent No. 1 being gratuitous passenger in the Jeep is not insured under the policy issued in the case. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order jmpugned and records of court below. Undisputably the claimant was sitttng In the Jeep as gratuftous passenger and the policy issued in the case is private Car liability only policy. Under statutory policy issued, nsk of gratuitous passenger sitting in the Car is not required to be covered. It is also not a case that by taking extra pnBmium and by entering jnto special contract therefor the respondent No. 2/insurance company has undertaken the liability of the gratuitous passenger ^tting in the private Car. In view of above, in the considered opinlon of this court, the Tribunal has not erred in exonerating the insurance company from its liabjlity to pay compensation inasmuch as neither the person who are sitting in the Jeep as gratuitous passenger are required to be covered under the statutory poltey nor risk is infact covered by an agreement between the owner and insurance company. Accordingly, 1 do not find and substanoe in the point raised by the appellants counset. So far as question of quantum js concerned, Shri Paranjpe submits that without there being any legal evidence as the Doctor has not been examined to prove the disability, the Tribunal has erred in awardtng Rs. 30,0007- as compensation to the claimant. ...r. •••^' ^ " ^ I 'p^sa^ ';i\ \ '-'Y -.-^^ ^ -J/ ^•a^^ ^ 4 9. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the medteal expenses suffered by the claimant i.e. Rs. 21,4©0/- had awarded Rs. 30,000/- in all for the injuries sustained by her in the sakl accident. In view of above, it cannot be said that the amount awarded is shockingly on higher side. This point has also no force. 10. In view of foregoing, in the considered opinion of this court, the appeal is sans merit being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu