HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (Ct N0. 300 OF 2008 ^) APPELLANT Non-claimant no. 2 RESPONDENTS/ Claimant 2, Non-claimant 5. Amrit Lal Kurmi, aged about 26 years, S/o Teej Ram, Caste- Kurmi, R/o village Gandrukalan Police Station and Tahsil Jaijaipur, distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) Versus Manbharat, aged about 46 years, S/o Dindayal Smt. Urmila Bai, aged about 44 years, W/o Manbharat, Caste Kurmi R/o village Gadrukalan, Tahsil JaijaipuF, Distt. Janjgir Champa (CG) presently R/o village Rogda, Tehsil Nawagarh, Police Station Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir - Champa (CG) Rajkumar S/o Manbharat, aged about 22 years, Caste Kurmi, R/o village Rogda Tahsil Nawagarh (CG) Umendrain, aged about 22 years, S/o Teejram Caste Kurmi, R/o village Gadrukalan, Tahsil and P.S. Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir - Champa (CG) United India Insurance Company Limited, Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur (CG) SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESENT:- ShriVasim Miyan, Adv. for the appellant. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Adv. for the respondent No. 5. None for respondent No. 4, though served. ORAL ORDER (22-4-2010) 1. This is owner's appeal against fhe award dated 27-11-2007 passed in M.A.C.T. No. 64/2007 by IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir awarding Rs. 1,42,000/- as compensation in favour of claimants exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as under:- 3. As' per claimants, on 17-6-2005 Harnarayan (since deceased) was working as a labourer in the tractor trolley bearing No. CG 11A/4045 and CG 11A/4046 respectively. 8. When they were returning from village Gudrukalan after unloading bricks, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor trolley, the deceased fell down, came in contact of wheels of tractor and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The claimants preferred claim petition against the driver, owner and insurer of the tractor trolley claiming Rs. 10,67,488/- as compensation for the death of deceased in the said accident. The appellant and the driver of the tractor by filing joint written statement pleaded the deceased was sitting in the tractor without their knowledge and fell down due to his own negligence for which they are not responsible. Respondent No. 5/Insurance Company by filing its written stateraent denied its liability on the ground that at the time of accident, 5 to 6 persons were sitting in the trolley. Tractor trolley is not meant for carrying gratuitous passengers; the deceased was not covered under the policy and Insurance Company cannot be held responsible to indemnify the appellant i.e. owner ofthe tractor trolley. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made held respondent No. 4 i.e. driver of the ti-actor responsible for the said accident, claimants are entitled for Rs. 1,42,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased; Insurance Company is not responsible to pay compensation to the claimants, passed the award against the appellant as well as driver of the tractor trolley. Shri Vasim Miyan, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. On the other hand, Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5/Insurance Company would contend that learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same deserves to be upheld. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned and record of the Tribunal. 10. A bare perusal of the pleading of the parties would reveal that the deceased was travelling in the tractor trolley at the time of accident. Ummend Rarn i.e. driver of the tractor had admitted this fact in his statement deposed before the Tribunal. Seetaram, examined by the appellant, had also deposed that the deceased was not regular labourer of the tractor, on the date of accident, the deceased was sitting in the trolley, he was also sitting with the driver when the said accident occurred. From the above statements, it is clear that the deceased was sitting in the tractor as gratuitous passenger or as a labourer at the time of accident. As per D.D. Poprani, the witness examined by the Insurance Company, under the policy of insurance, only risk of driver was covered, nobody can sit in the tractor trolley except the driver nor any policy was issued covering risk of such passengers / labourers sitting in the trolley. 11. As per Rule 28 of Rules of Road Regulations, 1989, a driver when driving a tractor is prohibited to carry or allow any person to be carried on tractor and driver of goods carriage is prohibited to carry in the driver's, cabin more number than that is mentioned in the registration certificate and shall not carry passengers for hire or reward. 12. The Supreme Court i-n case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma and Others1, has held in para 19 of its judgment that owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle. Admittedly, there is no cabin in the Tractor trolley, the sitting capacity of the tractor is only one i.e. driver. ' 2008 (1) SCC 423 ^^si -@ 14. 15. 16. Rule 28 of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 prohibits travelling of any person in the trolley. In such a situation, even the tractor attached with trolley if satisfies the definition of goods carriage, in view ofjudgment of Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v^ChQlleti Bharatatnma and Others1, the passengers travelling in the tractor trolley are not covered. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. For the foregoing, the appeal being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge