® IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ChHATriSfiARHAT BILASPUR CC.G.) ^•'•i- M. A. ra NO. fM^ OF 2009 Oivision Benck ^B PELLANTS ^3:w ^^' RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS ^" 1. Shobhan Paikra aged about 40 years Son of Shri Ramlakhan Paikra, Resident of Village Silphili, Post Pratappur, Police Station and Tahsil Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.). (Owner of the vehicle) 2. Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 37 years Son of Shri Bhola Prasad Jaiswal, Resident of Village Keshavnagar, Tahsii Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). (Driver of the vehicle) VERSUS ^ 1. Ramdhani Son of Shri Hanu, 2. 3. ^ 4. aged about 48 years; Sukhmen Wife of Shri Ramdhani, aged about 44 years; Santlal Son of Shri Ramdhani, aged about 16 years; Budhiyaro Bai Wife of Late Shankar, aged about 20 years; r'T^T'^ d: [^ ^- 1 6. ^'^ Ritesh Son of Late Shankar, aged about 06 months, Minor; Respondent No.3 minor through his natural guardian father respondent No.l Ramdhani and respondent No.5 through his mother respondent No.4 Budhiyaro Bai. All residents of Village Gotgawan, Police Station and Tahsil Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.). United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Bramha Road Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). (Insurer) i. MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION J73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 —-'~~'~~"T HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. fQ No. 1456 of 2009 Appellants Shobhan Paikra & another Versus Respondents Ramdhani & others @ ^/ MISC. APPEAL UNDER_SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri V. K. Pandey, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents No. 1 to 5. Ms Chitra Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.6. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 24th day ofJanuaiy, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. Heard. The instant appeal, filed by the appellants (owner and driver of the vehicle) arises from the award dated 22nd October 2009, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Pratappur, District - Surguja in Claim Case No. 42/2008, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,98,500/- to the claimants, fbcing liability to make payment of compensation upon the owner and driver of the vehicle i.e. the appellants herein this appeal. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record. The facts, in brief, as projected by the claimants are that on 14.5.2008 af about 4.30 p.m. deceased Shankar was waiting for the tractor - trolley, bearing registration No. C.G. 15-A/2802 and 2803 ^ ;-,\. ^.' Y on the Panchayti Road turning of village Ramganva. At that time due to rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant No. 2 (Vinod Kumar Jayaswal) the tractor-trolly got out of control, it turned turtle and hit deceased Shankar, who was standing there.The vehicle was loaded with cow dung and iron roads. Due to the accident Shankar received grievous injuries and he died on the way to hospital. The matter was reported to the police wherein the offence was registered atCrimeNo. 100/2008. The respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants, being legal heirs of deceased Shankar field a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation ofRs. 10,63,000/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evldence on record held that the vehicle in question was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of the accident Shankar died and therefore awarded a sum of Rs. 3,98,500/- as compensation to the claimants. As the insurance policy doesnot cover insurance of any person traveling in the vehicle and no premium was paid in that regard, therefore the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from any "liability and directed the owner and driver (present appellants) to pay the amount of compensation. The Insurance Company was exonerated by the Tribunal from its liability as the tractor and trolley were being plied against the conditions of the insurance policy as it was being used for commercial purpose, whereas the insurance policy was a Kisan Package Pollcy in which only the third party risk was covered. In the first-information report (F.I.R.) to the police etc. it was mentioned by the informant (witness) that the deceased was traveling in the tractor ..^' ^-^l 8. :^ but later on in the statements it has been shown as if the deceased was a third party, which was not accepted by the Tribunal. We are also of the opinion that if the report to the police was prompt and the facts were narrated therein, there is no question to disbelieve the said report i.e. the F.I.R. Further, once a document is admitted then the same is to be read in toto and cannot be read in part. The facts mentioned in the document are to be seen in toto and therefore there is no ground to disbelieve the contents of the F.I.R. Having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record we do not find any irregularity or illegality to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur