•A^^V& IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR r, •^^ M.A.fc) N0. ^92- /2011 APPELLANTS NOM-^LZLBNT .^ ^'.x? ^^' ^^ S.^" cv '^ 1. Sant Kumar Rajwade, S/o. Ramnath Rajwade, Aged about 51 years. 2. Rajmohan Rajwade, S/o. Sant Kumar Rajwade, Aged about 20 years. Both R/o.Village Nevra, P.S. & Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) ,^' 0^ RESPONDENTS NON- ^pfLx^.wi'T Cl^~U^(\N~r mg^ \<< VERSUS ^:- 1. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through the Branch Manager, Bramha Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 2. Manohar, S/o. Amrohit, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Village Gangi Kot, P.S. Bishrampur, Distt.Surguja (C.G.). MISC^APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT ''.l^ Non-aoDllcant Respondents Non-apDlicants HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH. DBi HON'BLE Dr. S.M. QUDDUS! & IVIR. G. IVISNHAJUDDSN. JJ M.AICINo. 392 of2011 Sant Kumar and another Vs. The United india fnsurance Co. Ltd.& another Present Mr. Ashok Kumar ShukEa with Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for the appeilants. Mrs. Chitra Shrivastava, counsei for respondent No.1. Mr. Mano] iVlishra, counsei for respondeDt No. 3. Per Dr. IM. J ORDER (ORAU (10.05.2012) J This appea) has been filed against the impugned award dateci 27.11.2010 passed by iearned 2nd Additional Motor Acddent Claims Tribunaj (FTC), Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) (for short "the Ciaims Tribunai") in Clajm Case No.24/2009 chaiEenging quantum and ilabliity part. Facts of the case, in brief are that on 29.12.2008, the clalmant/respondent No.2 herein was traveilng in a tractor trolley bearing registration Nos.CG.15-A/0449 and CG.15-A/D450 respectiveiy ioading bamboos in it. The said vehicEe was bejng driven by Rajmohan Rajwade, appeliant No.2 herein in a rash and negf'Egent manner due to which, Et turned upside down causing fracture of Tibia and Fibuia bone resuiting In 90% disabiijty of the clalmant/respondent No.2 herein. Thereafter, he was admitted in MissJon.HospitaE, wherein a steei rod was Inserted through operation. The cjalmant/respondent No.2 flied cfaim petitlon u/s 166 of the Moior Vehlcies Act, 1988 for an award of ^- '?. 6. compensation to the tune of Rs.6,20,000/- under various heads. The Clalms Tribunal after hearing the parties in the matter and considering the material avaiiable on record, partly allowed the ciaim petition of the appefianVclaimant hereln and awarded a sum of Rs.86,000/- aiong wlth interest of 7.5% per annum. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of Ciaims TribunaE as we!f as the impugned award and found that the injured/daimant i.e. respondent No.2 herein was trayeling in the vehicle in question vvhich do not have sitting capacity which amounts to breach of conditlon of insurance policy. Therefore, the ClaEms TribunaE has rightiy heid the appelEants i.e. the owner and dr<|ver of the vehide in question liabie to pay compensation. As far as quantum part is concerned, we have perused the same and found that the method adopted by the CSaims Tribuna! In cafculating the compensation Is correct and as such no ground for interference in the impugned award is made out. Accordingly, the appea! fails as no ground for interference is made out. ^—i . Sd/- §d/. 1 G.Minhajuddin I.M.Quddusi Judge Judge Priya