IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) No.— E ‘3 / W’w APPELLANT — %T{E ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BILASPUR C.G Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS M1. SMT. BIGRIBAI WIDOW BIRJI—IU BAIGA, AGE ABOUT 41 YRS., W”. RAMSINGH S/O LATE BIRJI‘IU BAIGA, AGI: ABOUT 22 YRS., IV{ GYANSINGII S/O LATE BIRJHU BAIGA, AGE ABOUT 20 YRS., N I /."' Q gem} x,/ 4. RAMPRASAD S/O LATE BIRJHU BAIGA, AGE ABOUT 18 YRS., Mg LAXMAN S/O LATE BIRJHU BAIGA, S \m% AGL ABOUT 16 YRS w“I‘OR MINOR REbPONDLNI NO 4 TO 5 FIIROUGII GUARDIAN MO FI-IER SMT. BIGRIBAI WIDOW BIRJHU BAIGA VA’LL RESPODENT RESIDENT OF ~ VILLAGE GODKI-IAMHI, THANA & TAIL-LORMI, DISTT.—BILASPUR (C.G.), RESPONDENTS/NON APPLICANTS GYANSINGII S/O RATAN GOND AGE ABOUI 19 YRS DRIVLR OF VLIIICLL AND OWNER, IRACIOR NO.-C.G. 10 A/ 4255 AND TROLLEY NO.- C.G.10/A 4256 \“77 JANSINGII S/O RATAN GOND, AGE ABOUT 27 YRS., OWNER OF THE VEHICLE, TRACTOR NO.- C.G. 10 A/ 4255 AND TROLLEY NO.— C.G.10/A 4256 BOTH RESIDENT OF — VILLAGE CI’IATARI, P.O. KODWA, GODAN, TIIANA - KUKDUR, TAI’ISIL ~ PANDRIA, DISTRICT — KABEERDHAM C.G. V ? HIGH COURT OF QHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR k ”Dmslcn BancH Hawks MR I mg ggyg g HON'BLE managing; moi-IAN sg-Lmsmm‘u : I _ M_.A. (C) No.1 6612008 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Bgswndants Smt. BignBai & others Eresent' Mr Sudhlr Agarwal Advocate for the appeuant None for the respondents mough sewed W (6 May, 2011 m. Qmrusi. r; 1. Heard. 2. The appeuant-Insurance‘Compgny has prafgrredmis, amgai undcr Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘mo Act’xggains‘tmaward dated 30.10.2007 passed in Chim Case Now/2,006 whereby the leamed Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Mungoli. Dictrict Bilaspur (CG) has allowed claim application of the claimants, granted compensation of Rs.5,2o,o501- to them and held liabie the apparent-insurance Company m satisfy the impugned award. 3. Facts of the case. in brief,” are that on 11.5.2006 Biti’iu Eaiga (sinoe deceased) was traveling in tho hactor—trolloyboaring registrahun number CG1 O.A~4255 & CG10-A-4256 as Labourer and going from Village Chatri to Kushyari. On reaching village Kushyari, he came down from the vehicle for some work and thereafter when he was trying to climb the said vehicle, he fell down from it and tyre of the vehicle ran over him as a result of which he died on the spot. Report of the incident was lodged in the Police Station Kukdur on the basis of which offence under sections 279 8. 304A of IPC was registered against the driver, of offending vehicle. The claimantawho‘ are widow & children of the deceased respectively, ciaimed compensation to the tuna of Rs.19,25,000l- under various heads onythe grouM.mat,mq,.wre dependents on the deceased, ”who was the sole naming member infamily, and due to his death. they had suffered loss of income 4. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award partially allowed the oiaim of the claimants awarded compensation to mom and fastened liability on the appellant herein to satisfy the impugned award ,K . .m v wq$ . Leamed counsel for tha appellant-Ingurance Company womdwargue that the vehicle was p1ied in breach’bf conditions of the insurance policyas it was being used for carrying passengers, whereas the dfending' vehicle was insured for agricultural purposes only and thus the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in fastening liability on the appeilant-Insuram? 90mpany to satisfy the impugned award. . We have heard learned counsel for the appellant: We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. ' . From perusal of the record it is evident that at the time of accident the vehicle-in-question was being used for carrying beratis and not for any agricultural purpose. It is also evident from the insurance policy that the same is ‘Kisan Package Policy‘ and there was , no sitb‘ng capacity in the troliey and as such, the deceased was not authorized to travei in the said vehicle. Even otherwise, owner ofthe tractor-.inoquewon has admitted mat the deceased was traveling with him in the said vehicle. The ctaimam have also stem in the claim application that on the date of accident the deceased was traveling in the whicle—iMuestion as labourer to load-unioad the goods. ln these circumstances. weare of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal should have exonerated theappellant-lnsurance Company. . ln the result. the appeal is allowed, the impugned award, so far as it relates to fastening iiability on the appeliant—lnsurance Company is concerned. it is set aside and we hoid that the appellant — Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants involved in the impugned award and the same shall be paid by the owner of vehicle in question. lncase any amount deposited by the appeiiantolnsurance Company has been withdrawn by the claimants, it will be open for it to recover the same from the owner of vehicle. However, if the amount, sodeposited, has not been withdrawn so far, the Insurance Company shall be allowed to withdraw the same. ’Rest. of the conditions and hndings of the impugned award, are hereby conhrmed It is hereby clarified mat the claimants are free to exwute theawafd against the ’ ‘UIQIR‘ w... T owner of vehicle. 9. Certitied copy rules. as per I _ SN- ‘vastaVa Sd/.. x Dr. LM. guddusi: Mam“ . dra Mohan Shr‘ Judge Ju ge