7 y é, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M. A. NO. 717 OF 2005 APPELLANT Uni‘l‘ed India Insurance Company Limifed. Versus RESPONDENT Gauri Shanker Yadnv 4 POST FOR JUDGMENT ON 12‘“ July, 2007 Sdl- Dhirendra Mishra Judge r ’ "T1.?.2007 : Versus Gauri Shanker Yadav, s/o Mohh‘ kam Yadav, aged 49 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fa. A. NO. 717 OF 2005 APPELLANT Unifed India Insurance Non—applicanf Company Limited, 'Tg‘hr‘ough Branch Manager, Unifed India Insurance Campany Limi‘red, Near Gopi Talkies, Raigar'h Disi‘r-icf Raigarh (6.6.) RESPONDENT A ppiicam , years, Occupaficn Service, Residem of Kafraroad, Rajeev Nagar‘, Raigarh (Chha‘rfisgarh). Present Shri Pankaj Agarwai, Advocafe for The appellant Shri Rajendra Tripafhi, Advocafe for respondent JUDGMENT k (Delivered on 15.07.2007) Dhirendra Mishra, J 1) This appeai under Section 173 of The Mofor Vehicies Ad, 1988 (hereinafter referred 'ro as ‘i'he AC1”) is direcfed againsi fhe award ‘dafed 22’” March, 2005 passed in Claim Case No.55/O3 hy The 2““ Addi'l'ional Molar Accideni Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, whereby a sum of Rs.25,000/— has been awarded 'l'o lhe respondenf/claiman‘l 'lowards compensafion for injuries sustained by him in ‘l‘he acciderrl daled 17.3.2003 involving moforcycle bearing regislra‘lion number C613-B~ 1066 owned by respondenf himself. V2) The grounds urged by ‘l'he appellanf-insurance company in 'l’l1is appeal are ‘lhaf +he driver, owner & insurer of 1'he offending vehicle were no'l' arrayed as parfy before +he claims fribunal and fherefore, fhe claim pefifion oughf +0 have been dismissed by +he claims fribunal for non- joinder of necessary parfies. Anofher ground urged by fhe appellan'i is fha‘i fhe responden‘i being The owner d; insured of The vehicle and nof The Third parTy, The claim peTiTion before The Tribunal was noT main'fainubie. Reliance is placed an fhe unrepor'l'ed judgmenf of The Division Bench of fhis Cour'i dafed 8.5.2007 deiiver'ed in MA. Ne. 1349 of 1997 beMeen Beesaahn Vs. Uniwd Insurancg Co. Ud. and Judgmenfs in fhe ma++er of Dhanrqi Vs. New India Assurance _Co. LTd. and anofher reporTed in (2004) 8 5C6 553 6: OrienTal Insurance Co. LTd. Vs. SmT. Jhuma Soho and oThers reporTed in 2007 AIR SCW 859. 3) On 1'he ofher' hand, learned counsel for file responden’r confended The? H12 respondenT-C’Iaimam had paid fhe uddi'fipnai premium fowar'ds coverage of risk for personal acciden'i 1'0 fhe owner & driver of 'l'he vehicle 1'0 'l'he exienl' of Rs.1 Lac. The claims fribunal on The basis of risk coverage of 'l'he owner and driver under ‘l'he policy condi'rion, which has been admih‘ed by Vinay Kohli, wifness of The appellanl' himself, has allowed fhe claim pel'i'l‘ion and passed 'l‘he impugned award fasl'ening liabili‘ly on fhe appellanf herein. Wifh respecf 'l’o ai'her objection if is sfa’ted fha‘l since The accidenT was caused by unknown vehicle, Therefore' iT was noT possible for The ‘claimanT To make The owner, driver & insurer of The offending vehicle ‘as par'ry. 4) I have heard learned counsel for The respecTive parTies and perused“ The maTerial available on record. 5) T is True ThaT The respondenT himself is The awner" and insured in The policy of Annexure NA-1 and liabiliTy of The insurance company is To The exTenT of indemnificaTion of The insured againsT The respondenT or a Third person. In The maTTer of Beesaaha (supra) The Division Bench of This CourT considering The facT of ThaT case ThaT in The insurance policy‘addiTional premium of Rs.18/- was paid To cover The risk of The driver, iT was held ThaT risk related To a salaried driver employed by The appellanT/claimanT and noT by The appellanT/owner himself. 6) In The maTTer of Dhanraj (supra) The Hon’ble Apex CourT inTerpreTing SecTion 147 of The AcT held ThaT sTaTuTory liabiliTy does noT exTend V , { . s I To owner of fhe vehicle and 'H13 insurance policy does n01" require an insurance company To assume risk of deafh or batmy injury To The owner of The vehicle. Such on insurance policy is oniy Tao indemnify The insured againsT iiabiiiTies incurred Towards a Third person or in respecT of damages To properTy. Considering The facT of ThaT case in Paragraph 10 i1' has been held ThaT policy in quesTion did no‘l' cover any risk for injury To The owner himself and exTra premium paid under The heading of ‘own damage' was, in fucT, Towards The passenger To The vehicle and noT for The injury To The person of The owner. An owner of V a ‘ vehicle . can only clalm . prowded . a personal acoldenT . . Insurance has been Taken ouT. Though in ThaT case There was no such insurance. In The maTTef-‘of 5mT. J'huma Saha (supra) also The raTio of law laid down in The maTTer of Dhanraj (supra) has been quoTed wiTh approval in Paragraph 12 and iT has been held ThaT since addiTional premium was noT paid in respecT of enTire risk of deaTh or bodily injury of The owner of The vehicle, Therefore, The provisions of SecTion 147 (b) of The MoTor Vehicles ACT which covers a risk of a Third parTy only would be aTTracTed in The facTs of ThaT case. 8) Now coming To The objecTion of The appellanT ThaT The claim peTiTion was liable To be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parTy. The case of The claimanT before The claims Tribunal was ThaT The offending vehicle could InoT be idenTified, Thesefore, iT was noT possible for The claimanT To array owner, driver and insurer of The said vehicle as parTy in The claim peTiTion and The claim peTiTion was filed only on The ground ThaT The addiTional premium was paid for covering The risk of The owner & driver in The accidenT. 9) So far as The submissionof learned counsel for The appellanT ThaT iT was open To The respondenT/claimanT To file appropriaTe peTiTion before The Consumer Forum under The Terms and condiTion of The policy is concerned, iT noT The case of The appellanT ThaT The claimanT has received any compensaTion for his personal injury from The appellant Therefore, in The facTs and circumsTances of The case, s it V‘ Rash an/— i 4 @ faking info considerafion Thuf The respondénf had paid an addi'l'icmal premium for coverage of his r'Iisk for personal accidenf To +he ex'ren'r of RSJ Lac and fur'fher' considering ‘H'ia'i' a sum of Rsg.25,000/- has been awarded 1‘0 ‘i'he claimant which is we” wi'fhin RsJ‘ Lac, This Couri’ is of The epinion 'H'ia‘i' no case is made cu'i' for inferference by ‘l'his Court 10) In The resuif, "there is no illeguii'l‘y or infirmHy in fhe impugned award, The appeal being devoid of subs‘kance deserves fo be dismissed and The same is hereby dismissed. No order as To eggs/T“/h E,/e