r IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHATTISGARHl MISC APPEAL (Cl No. 1 ^ 4- _/200 APPELLANT /OWNER ^ Ramesh Panjwani S/o-Late Sri Haridas Panjwani, Aged about 40 Years R/o Vijay Agency, Arora Complex, Jaistanbha Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Chattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^l. Claimant /2, Driver S/o Madanlal Patwa, Aged about 24 years, R/o Heeramoti Line, Hathithan Para, Ward No. 35, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^ Chandrashekhar S/o Shri Ayodhya Prasad Dubey, Aged about 27 years R/o Shankarpur, Ward No. 7, Dist. Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) ^Y X 'nsurer ...•^''^{^•^"^ c Ifko-TokJoGeneral Insurance Co.Ltd. ^- ^&^ ^^•'•^'^'' •B^ncj1-.?^?e'_3rd Fl??rl.345:347' / ^y'Q^ ^Branch Manager, ..^'^•^•^."^ € Ifko-TokJoGenen ^s^ »^-''BJ Lalganga Shopping Mol», G.E. Road, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE 1988^ —._.-1?&___ -— ^^ ^T f^'fjc^ ^^T ^^ 1FTOF TO •^jp^pl, ^TTl+i^i^, fsf^i-'-iy 'sm^F''^lt3E" •^2002 s^f ^w (^i^^t) i^ra^^tf^w^i S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.iK. Aaarwa) 16.11.2009 Shri Anand Shukla, Ad\{ocate for appellant. Heard on admission. This is owners appeal| 14.08.2007, passed by the| Rajnandgaon (for short tTribui| The facts brieflystated ^ire as under: As per claim petition, Van bearing registration No. Khairagarh to Rajnandgaon. The claimant preferred under Section 166 ofthe Mot< ef)^{^^ft^ ^{^df ^ fe^ Tf^gT ^T^Rm^T^I directed against the award dated Motor Accident Claims Tribunal lal') in ctaim case No. 08/06. (he claimant was sitting in delivery pG-OS/B-0881 and was going from pue to rash and negligent driving of the Driver. the said Van turnjed turtle near Pendrikala and asa result of which, the claimant s^istained serious injuries. an application before the Tribunal r Vehicles Act, for compensation of Rs. 2,06,400/- against the Driver/Owner and Insurance Company of thevehicle. | The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and upon appreciation of the submission of the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 45.000/- against the appellant and non-applicant No. 2/Driver of the vehicle exonerating Ithe respondent No. 3/lnsurance Company. | -^^ ^^ ^^T?^T iT^^I^Tfa'—FS/95—11 /200H— 1 .i)i), 000. aii^wl^ri^ Wff ^f^l 1F3OT? ^ ^ ^ww^^N?1 ''3-Sq "r?P7?^PT, ^ftWT^, f^^i 1 -My l^>9- ^200<§ -a?TI^?T ^SV (^(y<^) ^RTOR^fN CTi^ -^ Shri Shukla, learned c^unsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the since the claii^iant was traveling in the goods vehicle as his agent alongwith the go< Section 147 (1)(b)(i) of MV A< the Insurance Company from claimant and has erred jn a]warding the compensation against the appellant, and prays to set asi {de the award passed bythe Tribunal. In support of his contention, S|i judgment of Supreme Court Insurance Co. Ltd, reported in 1 have heard the coi impugned award and record ol In the claim application said vehicle as an agent of th loaded in the vehicle. It is pei ^N?raN qw?fS ^ ^?t Tfw?T7 ^3tf^T3?T^T ds loaded in the said vehtele, in view of t, the Tribunat has erred in exonerating its liabjlity to pay compensation to the ihri Shukla placed reliance upon the jn case of Ramesh Kumar v. National JMR2001-SC-3363. |nsel for appellant and perused the jtheTribunal. |led by the claimant before the Tribunal, nowhere it has been mention^d that the daimant was sitting tn the ^ owner of the vehicle alongwith goods finent to mention here that even it has not been mentioned that the ^laimant was under the employment of appellant at the time of acddent, nor has been mentioned that the said vehicle was loaded with some goods. As per written statement filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, the claimant was working with hjm as a labourer @ Rs. 50/- per day, but nowhere it has l?een mentioned that the claimant was traveling in the vehtele alongwith goods as an agent oftheowner. It is V^:^ ^<^ i?^f^T t^TT^t^—r'S/^5—11 /200H—1.00,000. ^ i .'^ 1 ^^•y/ f h8£»a fi STI^IT ^T'f^fNF ^^? 3?T^T 8^HI<»» Sahu ^ '?^a ^TRT^R, '^rftWM, f^^S'Hy 'NwCTi"^>>:-?ra?' .^.^......^200 g 3I^!?I "q^F (1rts^) i^<nw^?i 3^1 settled law that no amount <^f evidence can be looked into which is contrary to the pleadings. E\fen the documents filed by the claimant did not reveal that the claima^t was traveling in the said vehicle as an agent ofthe owner alongwith yoods loaded in the said vehicte. In view of the above, claimant was traveling in the compensation to the claiman impose any liability upon the the person traveling in the vet undertaken by the insurance <t)i<4§^<4(1 ^l*i^li^ ^ f^T^ <F^'^!< ip ^stfim-^i^i the Tribunat has rightly held that the ^ehicle as gratuitous passenger and has rightly exonerated the insur^nce company from its liability to pay as Section 147 of the MV Act did not insurance company to cover the risk of licle as gratyitous passenger. It was not a case of the owner that by p^iying extra premium and by entering into special contract, the liability r^garding gratuitous passenger has been lcompany. In the facts circumstances of the case, the case law cited ^/ the appellant cour^el is of no help to him. No other grounds have been raisect by the appeNant counsel. In view of foregoing re^sons. 1 do not find any substance in the appeal preferred by the appeilant; therefbre, the appeat being devoid of substance deserves to be apd is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal 3udge ^!^^ ^ fp5 (f^l^I ?I^^c[TT[^—rS/95—11 /200H-—1.00,000.