@ TN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G.) 41a MA. N0. ......... OF 2(1Qéh L /@ (AWEAL VALUED AT Rsg, £3Igag 2' i—1/ ‘ wm Bamh‘ AF?EAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. APPELANT : United India Insurance , ON—APPLICANT NazL Campany Limited Through : Its Divisional "d” @ Manager Divisionai $§ yy-iw‘ Office,Main Road,Korha, \ vRk-w‘ x Distt . —Korba (C . G.) éaieé ......... ............. * VERSUS RESPONDENTS ,5} / c Chanérika Singh Baikara SIG Late ' APPLICANT No‘ 1 , L Ram am Milan 2A$ year§.- Singh Oiiemgioyed. Paikara Agag} (AH’LICANT N02) viz. §R iitemira Singh Paikara SfO Late /, n’ am Miian Singh Paikara Ageti abGut 22 years: Unemployaé. ( PLICANT N03) Piirem’ Singh Paikar‘a S/O Late 9/} Ram Milan 'Paikarg Singh Agad mf 20 years.- Mempioye§. (ABPHCANT No.4) / 4; Pankaj LaE Ram Kumar Milan Singh Singh Paikara P§ikara SK} iii” ” &geti about 1‘6 years, Student, Minur, through respondent no.1, Chmérika Singh ’Paikara, Bkier bruther, Natural Guadian. A1} am RIO- VIR— Katinga, ?.S.&Tahsii . Pratappur ,Distt. Surguja (CG) QION—APPLICANT No.1) Pradeep Kumar S/O-Indraéeo £4 aged Jaws, M} V111 Kafirtga, RG-Chandramedha, ?.S.-Pratappur,Tahsil— Surajpur, rDistt: Surguja (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. No. 422 of 2006 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Appellant Respondents Chandrika Singh Paikara & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon’ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 85 Hon’ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate with Shri Atnu Gosh, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4. None for the respondent No. 5. ORDER Oral) I ( Passed on this 19th day of October, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. This appeal, filed by the Insurance Company, arises from the award dated 25.1.2006, passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Soorajpur in Claim Case No. 132/2004, awarding total compensation of Rs. 8,68,624/ — to The brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 13.6.2004 the vehicle — bearing registration No. C.G. 15—A/O2647 was being driven by the non—applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, and thereby caused accident in which deceased Ramilan Ram received grievous injuries and he died during the tr owner of the vehicle was the deceased himself and it was insured with the non-applicant No.2 / appellant. The claimants, being legal heirs of the under Section 166l‘of the Motor Vehicles Act for award of total compensation of Rs. 28,50,000/ — under various heads. the ‘claimants. Tractor, eatment. The deceased filed a claim case WWR¢‘ Learned Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record, assessed the yearly income as Rs. l,18,l76/— and after deduction of 1/3rd of the total yearly income, assessed the loss of dependency as Rs. 78784/—. Applying the multiplier 0f \1 1 , it has been held that the claimants are entitled to' a compensation of Rs. 8,66,624/— towards loss of dependency. In 2000/— were granted towards funeral expenses. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 8,68,624/- was awarded along with 6% interest from the date of the application. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record. The insurance policy is available o’n record. The OWner of the vehicle cannot come Within the definition of the third party. He was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. There is no coverage of insurance of the owner in the insurance policy. The insurance was valid from 5.2.2004 to 4.2.2004. The particulars regarding Agriculture Tractor Premium Detail are as under : Own Damage Premium (Rs) : 3,500 Third Party Premium (Rs) : 8 10 Bonus / Malus(°/o) : 0. 00 The net premium was Rs. 4,385/- and Service Tax was Rs. 351 /—. Thus, a total premium was paid Rs. 4,736, wherein the other addition to that Rs.’ covers are as under : 1. Fire Allied Perils & Terrorism (1) —House Hold Goods 10,000.00 3. 2. Tractor Burglary Details House ~ Breaking 2,94, 121.00. — House hold goods 10,000.00 In View of the above, the policy does not cover the owner’s risk and therefore in our opinion the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 25.1.2006 passed by the M.A.C.T., holding that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation, is set aside. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall be r nded to it. No order as to costs. \\ Sdl. '-M-Quddusi JUdge uv- Sdl- N.K.Agarwal Judge