L1 * Bimian 83min IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCmRH AT BILASFUR Misc. Appeal No. 9% [2006 APPELLANT , The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Raigarh, throug; its Diviaional Manager, Divisional OEce, Bilaspur (C.G.). RESPONDENT /Défendant No. 15 —Versus — @1. g Smt. Nan Bai, 42 years, Claimant No.1 Wd/ o Late Shri Gangarém Sidnr, Caste— 'Gonde, Occupation — Housewifa. RESPONDENT L2. } Shri Chandra Prakash Sidar, 16 years, Claimant No.2 V SI o Late Shri Gangaram Sidar, \ Occupation- Student. Sinceminor, through natural guardian mother- Nan Bai, Wdf o Late Shri Gangaram Sidar, ‘ Shri Dilip Kumar Sidar, 10 years, . Clwaimant No.3 SI o Late Shri Gangaram Sidar, Occupah'on— Student. Since minor, through natural guardian mother~ Nan Bai, Wdf o Late Shri Gangaram Sidar. All the three are R] o Village— singhanxmr. Post O$ce- Kapisda “B”, Tahail— Sarangarh, District— Raigarh (C.G.). ’ RE3PONDENT Defendant No.1 Caste— Gond, Occupation- Agiculturist, R/ o village— Singhanpur, Post OEce« Kapisda “B" P.S. 8a Tahsil— Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.). ‘ RESPONDENT : (L 5.} Shri Gaya Ram, Defendant No.3 ./ Si o Shri Tulsi Ram, RI o Gwah'ndeeh, Tahsil— Sarangarh, District— Raigarh (emf WPONDENT 4. ; Shri $idar Singh Sidar, 35 years, SI o Late Shri Kanwar Singh Sidar, W/ REspombwm $§fendant No.4 ac RESPONDENT Defendant No.5 smi Nehru Lax, Sf o Chandramam' Patel, RI o Singhanpur, Tahsil— $arangarh District— Raigarh (C.G.). The United India Insurance Compariif Ltd. Branch omce Raigarh, Tahsn as District- Raigarh(C.G.). APPEAL UIDER SECTION 1%3 OF THE HO'i‘OR VEHICLES AC 1988. ’ .\ l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlsGARH AT BILASPUR D.B: Hon’ble Shri LM. Quddusi‘ Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra‘ JJ. M.A. No. 3812006 APPELLANT : The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Versus RESPONDENTS : Smt. Nan Bai and others. Appearance: Shri Ajay Mishra, counsei for the appellant. Shri Manoj Jaiswal, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Miss Marisa Chhatri, counsel for the respondent No. 7. ORAL ORDER (04.01 .201 1) Per l.M. Quddusi, J. This appeal has been preferred. by the Insurance Company, however, since the owner of the tractor namely Sldar Singh Sidar is not present and is also not represented by any learned counsel in the Court below ex-parte proceedings were held against him. We are also giving this judgment ex-parte against him. (2) This appeal has been flied against the impugned award dated 01/04/2005 passed by the IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raigarh (Chhatlisgarh) by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited in Claim Case No. 24/04 awarding Rs.3,23,940/-. (3) The brief facts of the case are that deceased Gangaram Sidar, aged about 45 years was working as Mason. 0n 29/1 0/2002 at about 10.00 o‘clock in the night deceased Gangaram sat in the trolley bearing registration No.M.P.'-26 E/61 81 attached with the tractor bearing registration No. M.P.-26 E/6246 and was going to village Singhanpur. The respondent No.4 Sidar Singh Sidar was driving the tractor’rasmy’I and negiigentiy due to which the vehicle met with an accident resuiting death of Gangatam Sidar. The claimants have claimed total of compensation Rs.10,60,000/-. (4) It appears that the Oriental 'Insurance Company Limited insured the tractor only. lt has come in the evidence that the deceased was sitting on the trolley attached with the tractor. The trolley was not insured at the time of accident, however later on it was insured with respondent No. 5 i.e. United lndia lnsuranoe Co. Ltd. (5) However, since trolley was not insured at the time of accident the subsequent insurance done by respondent No. 5 cannot have any liability for the accident in question‘ {6) Since trolley was not insured and the deceased was sitting in the trolley the liability for the amount involved in the award cannot be fastened on the appellant-lnsurance Company. therefore the award of the Tribunal holding the Oriental insurance Company Limited and the owner of. the tractor jointly liable for payment is not sustainable. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is exonerated from the liability of compensation. The owner of the tractor is liable to pay the compensation. (7) The compensation already paid by the Oriental insurance Company Limited and Rs.25,000/- paid by the respondent No. 5 i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited are liable to be recovered from the owner by the appellant and Rs.25,000/- shall be adjusted towards the amount of Oriental Insurance Company Limited. (8) The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Sdl- I I.M.Quddusi R Sd/- J Judge I l . Prashant Kumar Mishra 7:;5 Judge K/j