?'. <. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR IVIISC. APPEAL (C) N0^ fl^ /1 / 2010 APPELLANT INSURER/RESPONDENT N0. 3 ^.¥ ><?.se yS^ ^ 'o''i ^y. ^?> 'ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai, Through it's Legal Manager, 3 Floor, Lal Ganga Shopping Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh A^" RESPONDENTS ' CLAIMANT /^%y&*/?>^j? AJ& .1 ^e^oftii)^] ^v-L VERSUS Smt.Lakshmi Bai, wife ofShri Rameshwar Singh, aged about48 years, resident of village Chachiya, Thana & Tehsil Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Nanhaku @ Nand Kishore, son of Shri Duwasant, aged about 27 years, resident of Sarora, Naharpara, Thana Sarora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh [ DRIVER ] 3. Shashinath Tiwari, son of Shri Rajendra Tiwari, aged about 30 years, resident of Raju Complex, Bhanpuri, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh [VEHICLEOWNER] MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT1988 ^ '*„•'' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Wlishra Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.804 of2010 Appellant versus Respondents ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Smt. Lakshmi Bai and others Present: Shri Amrito Das, counsel for ttie appellant. Shri I. Lakra, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri P.S.Koshy, counsel for respondent No.1. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173_ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15th December, 2010) Heard on I.A.No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal. The appeal is barred by 41 days. 2. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Couri: is satisfied that the appellant has been able to establish good ground explaining the delay in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal, thus, appears to be bona fide. Hence, I.A.No.1 is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. • With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard and disposed of finally at the motion stage. 4. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company , challenging the award dated 12-3-2010 passed by the learned 2 \ ^-Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Korba in Claim Biir..: li: "'^ty Case No.36/2008, holding the insurarice company as liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. Brief facts of the case are that at about 15:30 hours on 11-6- 2007 the deceased along with others was going to Village Gitari (Madwarani) being participants of Gauna Barat. The deceased along with the party were waiting for the bus, however, when the bus was not available, the Gauna Barat party sought lift from a truck bearing registration No.CG 04 J 9992. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident, which resulted in death of the deceased. 6. It has been stated that the deceased, when he could not get bus, sought lift from the truck driver and sat in the truck and as such he was a gratuitous passenger sitting in the goods vehicle where passengers were not allowed fo travel. 7. As per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the gratuitous passengers sitting in a goods vehicle are not required to be covered under the statutory policy. It is also not a case put-forth by the owner of the vehicle that by taking extra premium, the appellant insurance company has undertaken the risk of such •gratuitous passengers. 8. In vlew of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no liability can be fastened on the insurance company as the gratuitous passengers are not covered under the insurance policy. It is for the owner and driver of the vehicle to pay the amount under award ^ . 'jointly or severally. Accordingly, the impugned award against the Gopal appellant insurance company is set aside, however, the claimants are free to execute the award against the owner and driver of the vehicle. 9. In Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.801/2010, arising out of the same accident, a Division Bench of this Court has also taken the similar view holding that the insurance company is not liable to indemnifythe insured to satisfy the award as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and, thus, his liability was not covered under the insurance policy. 10. Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge