INJ 2% auim 224 3w Mama m3 gig 3mm £33m a? n+3 m&u: mama”avg?mg mgwma¢$awg§wn§ mchoa w ”3.3m #Evim Jag ~w\.~\~8uwg a$m unsi'alnu 'l'nvig'gsnga &§§&%$§ ~ 8 oooenwmna $3. on gnu. a3?1mm? ow\o~\~8uw .wmuaua 8\S\~oo:\ ma waonwea3.mam.an“mam umewuoo Egan roc~omu8g HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU M.A. N0. 384(2004 ‘APPELLANTS United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus RESPONDENTS Hemlal Suryavanshi and others SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT :- Shri S.S. Rajput with Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Adv. for the respondent No. 3 and 4. ‘ ’ Shri Anand Gupta, Adv. for the appellant. ' None for respondents No. 1 and 2 though served. This is Insurer’s appeal against the award dated 29-12-2003 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba in Claim Case No. 54/2003 awarding Rs. 1,00,000/— as compensation for the death of a 7 years child namely Anil Kumar in the accident dated 3—2—2003 in favour of the claimants / respondents No. 1 and 2 holding also liable to attached with tractor bearing registration ‘No. CG—12-8537‘. ed by him the fappellant/ Insurance Company for payment of compensation. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 3—2—2003 at about‘6.00_ p.m. deceased Anil Kumar along with other children was sitting in the trolley bearing registration No. CG 12-853‘8 Near Sentary Dafai Surakachhar due to accident of the tractor being driven by respondent No. 3, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured the appellant, said Anil Kumar died as a result of grievous injuries sustain in the accident. Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased was sitting in the trolley attached with the tractor and died on account of the injuries R wx sustained by him in the said accident and the policy of insurance does not cover the risk of such persons sitting in the tractor—trolley. On the other hand, Shri Rajput supported the award passed by the Tribunal. i ‘I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute that deceased Anil Kumar was sitting in the trolley at the time of accident. I have perused the Policy E‘fx‘ D—3. The policy is farmer’s package policy. As per the evidence of N.A.W. 2 D.D. Poptani, Asstt. Administrative Officer of the appellant/Insurance Company, the deceased was not covered under the policy. It is settled law that the risk of person sitting in the tractor trolley is not required to be covered? under the statutory policy issued under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Indisputably in the instant case, such risk is not covered by the Insurance Company by entering into a special ‘ agreement with the owner of tractor trolley and by taking extra premium therefor. ‘ The Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Coi‘Ltdl i v. Cholleti Bharatamma and Othersl, 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. ‘ In View of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal haswrongly fastened the liability upon the appellant/ Insurance Company for payment of compensation. Therefore, the same is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. ' 2008 (1) scc 423 In View of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed. The award impugned passed against the appellant/Insurance Company is set aside. However, the claimants are at liberty to execute the award against the respondents No. 3 and 4. u 11. No order as to costs. Sdl- N. K. Agarwal Judge