BB 42 <. INTHEHQN'B1-EMI©Me©yRl5^RGmii^lS<3^RH»Ttll.jSS^^ ;.:.MlSG.::AlsPEAI-^llTO.IS(^&'^264a' API*ELI-ANT ,ie:|01 Lcii'tiBaKJ.'OeirieiSI TnSuraneg : Co. Ltdiisl@IGI^lG!We ,iByndra;Kuria G^mplex,;;;.^Baniara,.'(E^t)sF^Mumt»ai, ,-/ INSURER/RE3P(3NE>ENTN0.3 '^,1':: i<i.i^s^^?x's^?n^^:y^^^'N^'3tl5?'3al; j%\^-^^^^'JKros^Mgii'ss.l-e^|^'^ •^^^•" •;; :Lal,^ainga:^^Qpffim^^^^ .•••^fe:^,^^'^::.^^'^a:ipur'::ehnattls^rfr'^ ^iiii^iiiii^^^^^^^^^ ^.^..Ka^^iyBRSuK...^/-'.'^ ^s^ •:^ ^to^&rrx^. i li%®ttffiSltlBlal8giiSi:fe;oKLafe.Arnbika^ ^g^SS^'!^3SS\^,wa^S:.'^6\j^^:2n: ;:?/ygaFS^:-'.''-^;:l::\",lt'.,' •'•; '.1..' • :: ,, 2;^^arnra;iRtasay(^ajsw/al,;'sian^,Qf'.l-ate §antla|Jaiswal,^ged^abciyt2QySars 3; /l<umar^Ganggitriyajs^al,^ughter<)f, Lgte Santlal Jaiswal, ag^ a •years:.'^^,'l/--..'^':': •: ..'::.. /,'• ^4.' KumaFi Rilesl^an Jajswal^daygh^ oFLate Saritlal JaiSwali'aged^about :;; .•14yearS.I^'l':^'-':': :.'^.: :: '.,: 5..lakesftt(varJajswal^^H^Qf^^ ^'•SaTiS^ysAswsf.^a^di^oW't'^ywiirs': 6. Kun^ri .^VagynelRalg;' ^•Jiaiswal, dai^hteir^eif^lSantlal. JaisWal;,^9ed^ :'ab@ut9^ears;| :;,:;Y.;;.•,.,:'..::,'::'-^'" 7. AkMHesh'KumaT.Jaiswal,;senoft-ate Santlal Jaiswai, aigecl abautfS years ResRenaent.N^. 4 t0,7teglng;minc!rs > are ^cesen^.Mrw^;>V^ ^^ guardisin,,^nSi¥UiFmi|^;Sdi, 'wife 'W LafeShriWnbil'caPFgsadJaiswal, B. Snit;,,|\^nrnati,iwife of.Late Dukalu 4aiswal, aged aBout^Qyears^^^^^^^-^^ All tl-ie-Lahovei reSi<lent:; ^:Wil|age '^•;^each:iya^T^hgi:I^^Kaaa|a,%/Thana^ KartalagDistt KQi-ba, Cnhattisgarh "9?; Najaliaky'^N^nd'Kish6re,sQn^Qf; ^;13s(e|'Civasan|8a^ed !aBouf^27.,years^ •:-^^^:;^:;s^'^l..:..'-;-':4:''^^ '-.. '^. '-i ;;iB3 il •'w1 s s ss s %'ll©^idt^MSWIIWII^^^8 ^lp^^!SS^^:ltSy^®iftiM!5i^^^^t^ ?••!' ^esyotf-oe^r Ai.z- resident of Sarora Naharpara, Thana Sarora, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh [ DRIVER ] lO.Shashinath Tiwari, son of Rajendra Tiwari, aged about 30 years, resident of Raju Complex Bhanpuri, Raipur, Tahsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh [VEHICLEOWNER] MEMORANDUIV1 OF APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEH1CLESACT1988 -»;..-TI-^..^^ul_ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILA8PUR DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE N. K. AGRAWAL, JJ MISC. APPBAL (Cl N0. 801 OF 2010 Vs. APPEARANCE: Mr. Amri.to Das, counsel for the appeUanfc Mr, Viaod Desluuukh, counsel for respondents 1 & 2. Mr. R. S. Baghel, couasel for respondent no. 10. Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J ORDER(ORALI (01.10.2010) 1. Heard on I.A.No. 1/2010, which is an appUcation for condonation of delay in filing this appeal whlch is barred by 41 days. Having heard leamed counsel for fhe appeBaat aud for the reasons stated iu fhe application, we are of the opiaion fhat the appellant has been able to establish good ground for condonmg the delay in filing the appeal. The appUcation is allowed. The delay is condoned. 2. With consent of leamed counsel for the parties, inatter has been heard finaUy. 3. This appeal has been filed by the Insin-aace Coinpany agaiast the award dated 12.03.2010 passed by fhe leamed Second Addl. Motor Accident'Claims Tnbunal (F.T.Q, Korba, in CIaim Case No. 14/2008 whereby the UabiUty has been fastened ou the insurance conipany to pay coiupensation. 4. Brief facts of the case, as aUeged by the claimants, are that on 11.06.2007 at about 15.30 hours the deceased along-wifh pthers was going to viUage Gitari, Madawarani, beiug pardcipaats of Gauna Barat. The deceased atong-with the APPELLANT ICICI Louibard General Insurance Compaay Ltd RESPONDBNTS Snit. Urmfla Bai and others 9 .^•\ party were waiting for Bus. However, when the Bus was not available the party took Uft Q-oni the Truck bearing registration No.C.G-04-J-9992. Unfortunately, fhe said vehicle rn.et with aa accident which resulted ia death of the deceased. 5. We have perused the records of the Tribunal. In the claiin petition itself it has bcen stated that fhe deceased when he could not get bus, sought lifit ftoin fhe truck driver aad sat in thc truck and as such he was a gratuitous passenger sitting ia the goods vetucle where passengers were not aUowed to travel. 6. As per section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the gratuitous passengers sitting ia a goods vehicle are not required to be covered under fhe statutory poUcy. It is also not a caae put forth by the owner of fhe veliicle tfaat by talring extea preinliun, the appeUaat Insurance Coinpany has undertakeu the risk ofsuch gratuitous passengers. 7. Iu view of the above, we are of fhe opinioa that no liabilily can be fastened on the Insurance Coiapany as thc gratuitous passengers are not covered under the Insiirance PoUcy. It is for the owner and drivcr of fhe vehicle to pay fhe amount under award joiatty or severaUy. Accordingly, the awari. against the appellant is set aside. However the claimante are &ee to execute the award against the owner and driver of the vehicle. 8. ' Appeal is aBowed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Rao