HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR Appellants Owner & Driver Respondents Claimants MACNo.1480 OF 2009 : 1. Rajendra Prasad, S/o Chhannu Ram, aged about 60 years, R/o Ward No. 1, Near Kall Mandir, Village Duddhi, District Sonbhadra 2. Satyanarayan, S/o Shri Kanhai, through Rajendra Prasad, S/o Chhannu Ram, aged about 60 years, R/o Ward No. 1, Near Kali Mandir, Village Duddhi, Dlstrict Sonbhadra (UP): Versus 1. Fulmati @ Fulbasiya, D/o Ramdhani Gond, aged about 10 years, Minor, through her natural guardian/father Ramdhani Gond, R/o village Ketma, Police Station Dhurki Anumandal, District Gadhwa, Jharkhand. 2. Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Brarwh Office, Patel Nagar, Murdhwa, Renucot, District Sonbhadra (UP). APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEMICLES ACT. (SB: Hon'bleMr.N.K.Aaarwal.J.l Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for appellants. None for respondent No. 1 . Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate witti Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ORALORDER (Passed on 28th day ofApril. 2010) 1. This is owner and driver's appeal directed a^iinst fhe award dated 28.08.2009, passed by the Additlonal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Ramanujganj, Distt. Surgu^i (for short Tribunal') in claim case No. 26/08. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under : j. On 13.03.2008, the respondent No. 1, i.e. claimant while coming from Talkeshwarpur to Peeparpan ^ ^^.4^--;^Yf%^-^'.'::'^^l^?w^i"'?;;^ rSK-^v-^fwv'v?!^^^ fcL_ alongwith 11 other persons in the Jeep bearing registration No. UP-64-B-5961 as gratuitous passenger sitting in the Jeep, the said Jeep turned turtte and pursuant to which the re^)ondent No. 1 sustained multiple injuries. ii. The respondent No. 1 fled an application under Section 166 of MV Act clajming^ Rs. 1,90,0(X)/- as compensation for the injuries sustajned by her in the said accident. jii. The appellants/owner & drtver of the offending vehicte by filing their written statement, denied ttieir liabiltty and specifically pleaded that since the vehtete is insured the tiability would be of the insurance company to compensate the respondent No. 1. iv. The respondent No. 2/insurance company by filing its written statement denied its liabiltty on the ground that the said Jeep was being plied by the appellant/owner in breach of condition of policy and the respondent No. 2 is not liable to indemnifythe insured. v. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny 01 evklence led, material placed and submissfons made by the parties, held the appellant No. 2 responsible for the sawd acddent; assessed the compensation as Rs. 15.000/- awarded against the appeltants exonerating the insurance company from its liabiljty to pay compensation. Shri Manbj Paranjpe, learned counsel appegring for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has fatlen an error in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. On the other hand, Shri HB Agrawal, teamed senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/insurance company, supported the award and would submit that in the fads and t '^' ? ws^' v^'<.^. :;^.. circumstances of the case, the Trtbunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay corapensation inasmuch as the respondent No. 1 being gratuitous passenger in the Jeep is not insured under the policy issued in the case. 5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and records of court betow. 6. Undisputably the claimant was sitting in the Jeep as gratuitous passenger and the policy issued in the case is private Car liability only policy. Under statutory poltey issued, ri^< of gratuitous passenger sitting in the Car is not required to be covered. It is also not a case that by taking extra premium and by entering into special contract therefor the respondent No. 2/insurance company has undertaken the liability of the gratuitous passenger sitting in the private Car. 7. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this court, the Tribunal has not erred in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation inasmuch as neither the person who are sitting in the Jeep as gratuitous passenger are required to be covered under the statutory policy nor risk is infact covered by an agreement between the owner and insurance company. Accordingly, 1 do not find and substance in the point raised by the appetlants counsel. 8. So far as question of quantum is concemed, Shri Paranjpe submits that without fhere being any legal evtelence as the Doctor has not been examined to prove the disability, the ^•^:^"'^ /'fy% '^ ;-.. ^ '^ y •:J^I, ^ \\ :^ ^ /y ' '..>,'. ''::^: ,<^ Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to the claimant. 9. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the mediGal expenses suffered by the claimant, had awarded Rs. 15,000/- in all for the injuries sustatned by her in the said accident. In view of above, it cannot be said that the amount awarded is shockjngly on higher side. This point has also no force. 10. In view of foregojng, in the considered opinion of this court, the appeat is sans merit being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. f ^-sd/~ N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu