^^ IN THE HON'BLE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. t.y."|.^. OF 200^ (APPEALVALUEDATRs.3.17.600 /-) »— APPEAL UNDER SECTION l^ OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. APPELLANT (NON-APPLICANT NQ.l) <United India Insurance Company Limited, Through: Its Branch Si..\^" ?\ <-. Manager, Branch-Office, Ram 'tt'To-rf4-<[9^M"!7 mandir road, Ambikapur, P.S. & Tahsil - Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS (APPLICANTNO.l) (APPLICANT N0.2) (APPLICANT N0.3 ) < VERSUS : 1. Hemlata W/o- Dharmendra Kiunar ^ Yadav, aged about -23 years, Occupation-house wife :2. Jagsai ,S/0 Mohan Yadav, aged about 60 years, occupation - farmer , :3. Phoolkunwar W/o- Jagsai, y^'' aged -50 years, occupation- house wife, AU are R/0-Vmage-Mansukh, P.0.- Mansukh, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, Distt. - Koria (C.G.) present address - VUlage Manja (In the house of Jainuna Prasad), P.S. Ramanujnagar, Tahsil- Surajpur, Distt. Siu-guja (C.G.) ,T» (NON-APPLICANT N0-2) :4. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, S/O-Ram Sundar s/ ^ Gupta, aged about 50 years, occupation - owner of the vehicle, R/0- VUl^e Lakhanpyr, P.S. Lakhanpur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) (NON-APPLICANT-N0.3) :5 Bhuraram Chaudhary S/0 Kanharam @ Kana Ram Chaudhary, aged about 35 years, occupation - Driver, R/0- Vallage- Koran Panch Padra, P.S.- Mardali, Distt. Vadmar 458 E.K.N. Nagar Jaudhpur (Rajasthan), At present-Sirmina, O.P.- Korbi, Tahsil- katghora, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) |i'''^gB8E^| ^ ':I^E3^' .4^ <? HIGHCOURT QF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. 1041 of 2009 Appellant United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Hemlata & ofhers APPEAL_UNDER SECTION 173_OF THE MOTQR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shril. M. Quddusi 6s Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Ms Neha Verma, Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. None for the respondent No. 4, despite service of notice. "?-. ORDERIOrall ( Passed on this 15th day of July, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 16.3.2009, passed by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Soorajpur, District - Surguja in Claim Case No. 40/2007, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,17,600/-. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award. Despite repeated calls no'one appeared from the side of the owner/Respondent No.4. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that deceased Dharmendra Kumar Yadav was engaged as Labour for loading - unloading ete. on the '& 7. 8. tractor-trolley bearing registration No. C.G. 15/1229(old No. C.P.L./9260). On 1.11.2006 in order to unload the soil from the trolley, it was kept on up position by the means of hydraulic jack. When the deceased went to took out spade, which was underneath the trolley, all of a sudden the jack and trolley fell down, Dharmendra Kumar Yadav came under the trolley and died on the spot. The legal heirs of the deceased Dharmendra Kumar Yadav/claimants filed a claim ease under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a tofal compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/- under various heads. Learned Tribunal, having regard to the facts and evidence on record, passed the impugned award, directing the non-applicant No.l/appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,17,600/- as compensation along with interest to the claiinants. The appellant Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal against the impugned award so far as fastening the liability on it on the ground that the trolley was not insured wifh the Insurance Company and only the tractor was insured. It is correct that the deceased was not sitting in the trolley at the time when the accident was taken place and he was beneath the trolley but unfortunately the trolley was not insured and only fhe tractor was insured. Therefore, the submission made by leamed counsel for the appellant that the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation is sustainable and thuy the insurance company is exonerated from its liability. ^PEKBys^^-d 9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The irapugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehiele (Jagdish Prasad Gupta). No order as to costs. 10. It would be open to the appellant to realize the amount and recover the saine from the owner. ___-_——— Sd/- I.M.Quddussi Judge Sdi- G.Minhajjudin Judge Thakur L.,.