^t" v>-\/^'^s^A^-k^^^\^~^S^V»^^<-AJ'L^-^/^'^-m^SAJ^^^^ c ^- ^/A IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SinalBBench MISC. APPEAL(C) N0. ^f j ^l OF 2009 APPELLANT/ NON-APPLICANT to.2 OWNER OF :^ Bhaku Lal S/o Punu Uraon, aged about 48 years, Vehicle Owner, R/o village- VEHICLE ^^•y ...-•^><1^' ^.^^^;:^.^u"~' VERSUS M'" . •< (..-•l^^Gharghoda , Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). '^•"" RESPONDENTS CMlMANTS ^ DRIVER Insurance Conipany / l^, Tula Ram S/o Sidar Rathiya, aged about 47 years, Caste-Kanwar 2. Sukhmati wife of Tula Ram, aged about- 45 years, Caste- Both residents of village- Teram, Tahsil and P.S. Gharghoda Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 3. /Saguran Rathiya S/o Dev Singh Rathiya, Driver, aged about- 33 years All resident ofvillage- R/o Bhatapara, Charoda, Near Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Distt. Durg (C.G.). 4. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Itwari Bazar Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). Claim before the Tribunal Awarded amount Value of appeal Court Fee Rs. 15,^,000/- Rs. 1,65,000/- Rs. 1^E65,000/- Rs. 15/- ^' MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 —78 a^T^T ^T f<Tlich TT^T ^ff^T $^*licn ^ HIHOI (bHI<»» 'S'^T ^ll^ld'1!, ^tHwKo, fc;i<ni'Mll< ^.^..A.:Ccl...^..,..3...'..^,oo^ 3^1 'q^7 (1(i^3^11) IF^HW^f^T 3?T^?T cbN(d41T1 'WR^ff ^* fe^ <^i^i< ^'affims^n^T s.Q. Slirs JusSice N,K. AaarAfal Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, c|3unsel for the appeliant. None for the respondents. i|;ation for condonation of delay Heard on I.A. No.01, appli| in fifing the appeai. On due considerationi i anl succeeded in expiajning the cau; satisfied that the appellant has |e of deiay in fJling the appeal. Therefore, the application is ali^wed and the delay caused In fHing the appeai is hereby condontd. Also heard on admission. yl The instaht-appeai T'lled ^ the ovs/ner/appellant against award dated 05-12-2008 pass^d by Third Additjonai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribuna! (F.T Tribunai) In Claim Case No.09/2p08 whereby and whereunder .), Raigarh (for short 'the an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- has daimants/respondents No.1 & 2] and respondent No.3,. exoneratirl •Cornpany from Its payms'nt. The oniy submission made ^een awarded In favour of the |and as against the appeHant |g respondent No.4 insurancs 3y Shri Slnha, iearned counsei for the appellant is that the l^amsd Tribuna! has .wrongly exonerated the Insurance C|?mpany .from payment'of ^ @l... _....- =F r-HG—78 ^n^T^FT f<vljch 'cf^TT 3?TT^T sb^ti^) ^ -^oET ^it^id<LI, ^ti1^4i<o/ [®i<ni<yy /v\ACc) ^'o. ^/^/ Kl*4dl ^^|cb^^^^^"^^-^^^"^"^^^^^^^^^"^"^^^^^^ ^ 200 ^ 3TT^?T TT3W (^t^<^) ^wi^ ^f^a 3^?T -<5.. pass^ngsrs coiTipensatlon tnough the vehj respondent No.4 Insurancs dlsputed that extra premium h^ No.4 jnsurance Company gratuitous/non-gratuitous I have heard learned the record and the aw^ •The Ku. Saml In the said acddent. Thut passenger in the tractor at th^ nsk'of such passenger has no| v^hlch the tractor was insured. As per Sectlon 147 of the| Act'), the insurance Company i^ gratyltous/non-gratuitous compliance df Section 147 of th'| premlum, the risk of gratuit| undertaken by the insurance oplnion ofthis Court, the.!earne| ths Insurance ''Company compensation and; rightly appelianVowner' for payment. of ^ Gbl^fd41'1 ^Hdl* ^* fe^ <F»l<^i< ^3tRTH3TT^?T jcie l.e. tractor was Insured v,/1th pompany. However, It js not ^s not been taken by rsspondent coyering the risk of any of the tractor. jcounse! for the and |rd impugned. trl slttlng En the tractor ana' i| the was a gratujtous ^jme of accident. Admittedjy, the been covered by the pollcy by |!VJotor Vehlcies Act (f-or short 'the not required to cover the risk of |nger by the poljcjes in Act. Admittedly, by taking extra t|3us passenger has not ^ornpany and therefore, in the' ie|j Tribunaj has right.iy exonerated- tc^m its jiabllity to • 'pay any• ftsstened the jjablllty on. the' ^ompsnsatlon to the claimants. 37T^T ^T f^N' T[Sff 3TT^T'grqN)' -qr- T^ ^||<4id<ll, ^tTl^^Ko, f®i<ni^^< *11*1CTI <t»*1ict» ^^^l^^a\^i_ 12001 3TT^T TT?^ ( ^i^^) ^«ii^R^f^a W^T - ?>- in yiew of the above, the a is dismjssed at admlssion staG.e. No order as to costs. oM^(<n<flti *iH<nI ^ fe^t <P»i^i< ^stfim^n^T 3peal being devoid of substance Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge