4 INTHE HQN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.CCj No. t (^"l of 2011 APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT No.3 w/ ^^.< <x):^4/ v.^ / /-y ^ ^^v:^ ^- ^- Ys;-^ \^ ^ ^^\< .%•^ ^ ^^ . United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Bramha Road, Ambikapur, Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (INSURER OF JEEP No.CGlSB 0785) RESPONDENTS :1) :2) :3) :4) :5) :6) :7) :8) :9) Versus Urmila Devi, Wd/o. late Dilip Ram, aged about 40 years, Shakuntala, D/o. late Dilip Ram, aged about 23 years, Krishna S/o. late Dilip Rani, aged about 22 years Prabha, D/o. late Dilip Ram, aged about 21 years Poonam, D/o. late Dilip Ram, aged about 18 years Soonam, D/o. late Dilip Ram, aged about 11 years Rashmi, D/o. late Dilip Ram, aged about 08 years Rinki, D/o. late Dilip Ram, aged about 04 years Respondents No.6 to 8 are miner through their natural guardian mother Urmila Devi, All R/o. Village Dakaee, Police Station Dhaurpur, District Surguja (C.G.) CLAIMANTS Ajay Kumar Gupta, S/o. Ramnaresh Pra.Gupta, aged about 25 years, Occupation .^^^, d^. 6^%kvA ^(^^ H' Q^ ^l^^^, y-^^ ^Sg-.^-t-cw^^^J '^i^'_ (DriverofJeep No.CG l5B 07851 ^V\AVV x»vvv ^^ ^-' ^' ^f \<\^ r ^'1 ^ : 10) Ramnaresh Pra. Gupta, S/o. Inderdevsao, aged about 55 years, Occupation Vehicle .^^--y^ 0785) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE IVIR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. M.A.fONo. 807 of 2011 Appellant Respondents Vs United India Insurance Company Limited, Surguja (CG) Urmila Devi and others M.A. (QNo. 808 of 2011 Appellant Respondents Vs United India Insurance Company Limited, Surguja (CG) Kheeruand'others Present: Mr. HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate for the appellant/insurance company. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for respondents No. 9 & 10 in MA(c) No.807/11 and respondents No. 3 & 4 in MA(c) No.808/11. Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 8 in MA(C) No.807/11 and respondents No.1 & 2 in MA(c) No.808/11. ^ndORDER(Oral) (2naDecember,2011) Per I.IVI. Quddusi. J; 1. These two appeals filed by the appellant/insurance company against the awards dated 14.12.2010 passed by III Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Surguja (Ambikapur) (in short "Claims Tribunal") in Case No. 16/10 and 15/10 respectively, challenging the fastening of liability upon the appellant/insurance company, are beingdisposed of by this common order since they arise out of the same accident. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per averments made by the claimants in Claim Case No. 15/10 & 16/10, are that on 23.4.2009 Ratan and Dilip Ram along with others were going to Padouli by jeep bearing registration No. CG 15 B-0785 for attending marriage ceremony of 2 Kundan Gond of their village. However, due to rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1 Ajay Kumar Gupta, the said jeep turned turtle, as a result of which Ratan and Dilip Ram sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The other villagers traveling in the said jeep also sustained injuries. Therefore, the claimants/dependents of deceased Ratan and Dilip Ram filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") for a total compensation of Rs. 12,10,0007- against the death of Ratan and Rs. 13,30,0007- against the death of Dilip Ram under various heads. 3. However, learned claims Tribunal, after hearing counsel for the respective parties, considering the material available on record, by the impugned awards granted a total compensation of Rs.3,72,000/- in favour of claimant/dependents of deceased Ratan and Rs.3,29,000/- in favour of claimants/dependents of deceased Dilip Ram, fastening the liability upon the appellant/insurance company. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the Lower Court Record as also the impugned award. 5. We have perused the insurance policy. It was an act policy only i.e. covering the 3rd party risk with the risk of owner-cum-driver and one WC employee, but no risk of occupants was covered under the policy. Since it was not a comprehensive policy, therefore, the deceased, who were occupants in the vehicle in question, were not 3 party and as such, they were not covered under the insurance policy. In such circumstances, the appellanVinsurance company could not have been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants and therefore, in our opinion, the claims Tribunal has committed a manifest error of lawin fastening the liability upon the appellant/insurance company. 6. In view ofthe above, the appeals are allowed. The findings in the impugned awards of the claims Tribunal, in paras 11 & 12, regarding fastening of liability upon the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants, are hereby set aside. The appellant/insurance company is exonerated of its liability. However, it will be open for the claimants to realize the amount of compensation from the owner and driver of the jeep, jointly and severally. 7. The amount, which has already been deposited by the appellanVinsurance company, shall be allowed to be withdrawn by it, if not already disbursed. However, if the amount has been disbursed to the claimants, the appellanVinsurance company shall be free to recover the same from the owner and driver of the jeep, jointly and severally. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^