Division Bessli BEFORE THE HON*BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. N0._€^ OF 2006. APPELLANT C9 NpN-APPLICANT N0. 3 RESPONDENTS x% ./^' :- »"" United India Insurance Company Limited, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS :-1. Smt. Leelabai, widow ofGaneshram Patel, Aged about 29 years, 2. Master Kapil, son ofGaneshram Patel, aged about 10 years, 3. Ku. Pumima, daughter ofGaneshram -/^ Patel, aged about 3 years, ^4. Ramadliar, son of'Bakhatram Patel, aged about 62 years, 5. Smt. Rambai, wife ofRamadhar, aged about 58 years, Respondents no. 2 and 3 minor through Natural Guardian Mother Leelabai, widow ofGaneshram Patel, all resident ofViUage Belsari, Post Belsari Takhatpur, present resident ofJarhagaon, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), CLAIMANTS ,§.Melauram, son ofJhaduram, aged about 25 years, Vehicle Driver Tractor no. C.G. 10A/3678 and Trolley no. C.G. 10A/3679, resident ofViIlage Jareli, Post Taldiatpur, Tahsil and Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), k ?. - - » A • "- ^' 6. Aman Singh Thakur, son ofRanJit Singh Thakur, aged about 30 years, Vehicle Owner Tractor no. C.G. 10 A 3678 and Trolley no. C.G. 10 A 3679, resident of Village Dhandhan, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). NON-APPLICANT N0.1 AND2. \^' APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988. HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6AKH AT BIb^SPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHftI I.M. OUbDUSI & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. A6ARWAL. JJ. M.A. (0 N0. 83 OF 2006 APPELLANT hkm-ODDlicant No.3 RESPONDENTS ; United India Insurance Company Umited. Versus : Smt. Leeta Bai & others. M.A.fO N0. 84 OF 2006 APPELLANT Non-aDDlicant No.3 RESPONDENTS United Indja Insurance Company Limited. Versus : Smt. Santoshi Bai A others. f -. . Present : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for the appellants in both appeals. Shri Amit Kumar, counsel for respondent No.7 in M.A.(c). No.83 of 2006 and respondent No.5 in M.A. (c) No.84of 2006. ^ None for the owner of the vdiicte thou9h served. ORALORbEft (Passcd on 1st day ef becembw, 2010) Per I.M. Quddusi. J. 1. Heard. 2. The above two appeals i.e. M.A.(c) Nos.83/2006 & 84/2006 are bein9 disposed of by thjscommon order as both these oppeals have been filed by flppellant-Insupance Company agajnst Ihe common aword ckxted 31-03-2006 passed by Additional Motor Acddents Ctaims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Bitaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Cbjm Case Nos.103/2005 & 104/2005 allowing the ctaim petitions of the ctaimants. 3. Facts of the case, in brief. are that the claimants have filed two separote claim applications seeking compensation of Rs.18,50,000/- A Rs.21,00,000/- for the death of fianesh ftam & Ram Kumar yadav respectively, who died in a motor occident which took pkxce on 17.5.2005 when the tractor-trolley beahng registrort-ion number C.^.IO-A-3678 & C.&.10-A-3679 respectively, in wrfiidi the deceased persons w»retraveling, has •tumed -turtle due to rash and neQ^ynt driying by its drivcr. Report of the incident was also lodged in the police station against re^»ondentNo.6 herejn. 4. After servi<» of suramons, the respondents/non-opplicants appeared before the tribunal and filed Itieir separate w*it('en statements denyjng ~~" the claim of -the claimants. 5. The leamed tribunal, on close scrutiny of evidence ted, material pkiced and submissions made by -the parties, has atlowed the ctaim (wtitjons of the chimants <md held the appellant/Insurwice Compcmy Ijable tp twy compensation to the claimants in both 1+ie ctaim cases on the ground Ihat the insurance company has failed to prove breach of terms and conditions of the inajrance policy. 6. Leamed counsel for the appeltant-jnsurouice company has ajbmitt'ed that the tractor-trolley in question was inaired only for the ogriculturaj puryoses, w^ereas a-t tiie time of occident the same was being used for carrying Boratis. which is evident from the report of Ihe incident lodged in the police station, and as such, it js clear that the deceased were travelin9 in the vehicle as grotuitous pd^sen^rs. He further aibmitted that sitting capacit/ of the tractor is only one, wrfijch is ctear from -^e RC Book. ttdiereas at the time of wcident more thcn one person vws traveling in the tractor. He further argued that at the time of accident drwer of the vehicle was not ppssessing effective <vid valid drivmg license to drive the said vehicle. Thus. in these circumstances, it is evident -that the vehicle in question was plied in breach of the terms and conditipns of insuromce policy, however, the trjbunal ignoring all Ihese facts has fastened the liabjlity to compensatjon to the claimants on the insuroince compflBiy, wdiich is not tanable. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has suppprted the impugned award. 8. We have heard leamed counsel for the part-ies. W& have also perused the records of the tribunal. r .-<^ •ff^^ "\ " •-•^^!%1 ^. ""':^^// "^. ^^^ /.' "^.•.^^ ^»n«H^^ I- 9. As per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 grcrt'uitous ^osse^ers sitting in a vehicle insured for agricultural purposes are not required to be covered under the stotutory policy. 10. In the writt-en stat-ement filed by respondent No.2-owner of vehicle, jt is mentioned that the deceased pwsons were engaged in the said vehicle as coolie, however, he did not adduce any evidence, oral or documentary/ in support of this contention. Whereas claimants of€leceased-&aneshr<»nPatel have stated in their claim petition that he wes runnin9 a bet-el shop in the village and also p^ovidjng loudspeaker, televisjon, sound boxetc onrent. The claimants of deceased Ramkumar Yadav have stoted in the application thert- the deceased was engaged in the busmess of selling readymoide clothes in the weekly markets of nearby villages. Thus, it js clear that at the tirne of deceased persons were not employed as coolie in the vehicle of the respondent No.6 rather they were travelihg in the said vehjcle as grat-uitous passengers. Therefore, we ore of the opinion that owner of the vehjcle has fajled to prove that- the deceased persons were traveling in the trad-or- trolley as coolie, thot is to soy, thcrt- the vehicle was not plied in h'each of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Thus, directjon of the tribunal to the appellant insurance company to sotisfy the award is not tenable in the eye of Jaw. 11. In the resuit, the appeals [M.A. No. (C) No.83/2006 A 84/2006) preferred by the appellant-insurance compar^/ succeed and the impugned aw/ard fastening the liabiljty on the appeltant-jnsurance companyto pay th®amount of compensatjon to the claimants ishereby set aside. The owmer of vehicle in questjon shall only be liable to pcy compensation to the clajmants. In case any amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company has been withdrawn by the claimants, it will be open for it to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. However, if the amount, so deposited, has not been withdrawn so far, the appellant shall be allowed to withdraw the same. Rest of the conditions and findings of impugned award are hereby confirmed. It is hereby clarifjed that cldmants are free to execute the award against the owmr of the vehicte. 12. Certified copy as per rules. —— ^<-^v^ Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- H. K. Agarwal