:!K^w ^?- HON'BLE IN THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C)No. Gl^\^Q^ APPELLAfiT RESPONDENTS ^•THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. RAIPUR, THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. KUCHHARI CHOWK, MADINA MANZIL, RAIPUR, TAHSIL & DISTT.- RAIPUR(C.G.), (INSURER OF TRACTOR TROLLEY N0.- C.G. 04, D.A. 0422 AND 0423) Vrs. SMT. CHEYMOTI BARIHA AGE ABOUT 38 YRS. WIDOW OF SHRI KUNJB1HARI BARIHA RAJULAL BARIHA AGE ABOUT 18 YRS. S/0 LATE SHRI KUNJB1HAR1 BARIHA ALL RESIDENT FOR VILLAGE CHANDALI, P.0. BHANDISAR, THANA & TAHSIL SARANGARH, DISTT. RAIGARH (C.G.) NARENDRA KUMAR RATRE AGE ABOUT 30 YRS S/0 SHRI MAHIPAL RATRE, RESIDENT OF V1LLAGE BALSI, P.0. SARAYPALI, TAHS1L SARAYPALI DISTT. MAHASAMUND (C.G.), (DRIVER OF TRACTOR AND TROLLEYNO.- C.G. 04, D.A. 0422 AND 0423) 4. ll/JANI RAM BHASKAR AGE ABOUT 35 YRS. S/0 < ' SHRI KARTIK RAM BHASKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHALPALI, P.0. LAMBER, THANA & TAHS1L -SARAYPALI DISTT. MAHASAMUND (C.G.), (REGISTERED OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TROLLEYNO.- C.G. 04, D.A. 0422 AND 0423) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTIOI*n73 MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSOARH. BILASPUR DB: HOM'BLB I.M. QUDDU8I fis HOM'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MI8HR&, JJ M.AtCINo. 618 OF 2006 Vs. RBSPOMDBMTB SmtCheymoti Banha and ofhers APPBAL UNDER SECTIOB 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLB8 AOT. 1988 APPEARANCE Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Counscl for the appeUaafc Mr. R. S. Patel, couiisel for respondents 3 & 4. Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J ORDER (ORALI (05.04.2011) This appeal has been filed by the Insuraace Coinpaay ^aiast fhe impugaed award dated 03.10.2006 passed by the II Additional Motor Accident Claiins Tribunal, Mahasamimd, District Matiasamund (C.G) in Claua Case No. 227/2005 so far as it relates to the liability imposed upon fhe appeUant Brief facts of the case are that on 01.11.2005, deccased Kunj Bihad was traveBng in Tractor TioUey bearing Regn. No.C.G.04-DA/0422 & 0423 owned by respondent No.4. On fhe way near vUlage KaasipaU, the said Tractor-TroUey which was beiag driven by respondent no.3 in rash and negUgent manuer struck against a stone, as a result of which, Kunj Bihari sustained grievous iujuiy. He was brought to fhe Hospital where he died.durmg the coursc of treattnent. At the tiine ofaccident, fhe deceased was aged about 40 years. He was workiag as Head Mason aad was eanung Rs.200/- per day. The claunaate being dependents/legal representatives have filed claim petition for fhe awanl o£ APPELLART The New Indla Assuraacc Compaay Limited coiapensation to fhe tuae of Rs.30,25,000/- on various heads ia Ueu ofdeath ofthe deceased. 3. The learaed Clauns Tribunal has held fhat fhe said Tractor TroUey inet with accMent, as a result of which, Kunj Bihari died; tt is not proved fhat at fhe tLaie of accident, thc driver was not haviag valid and cffective drwiag Ucease and it is not proved that the Tractor was used in breach of poUcy conditions. The Tribunal has awarded a totel cpmpensation ofRs. 3,59,000/-, which thc claimants are entitled to receive froin fhe appeUaut and respondents 3 & 4 joiafly and severally. 4. We have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties and have also perused fhe Lower Court Records. S. The Claims Tnbunal has imposed fhe liability ypon fhe Insurer/Appellant ou fhe ground ttiat the deceased had sought Uft on fhe Tractor whlch was permltted by the driver when the Tractor was on fhe way and fhe dcceased was not an agricultural labourer, but siace fhe iasurance Coinpany has not produced aay evidence fhat fhe owaer offhc Tractor was haviag kaowledge that the driver of the Tractor had given lift to fhe deceased, fhe Insurance Coinpany is Uable to pay the coiupensation. 6. We do not find aay good reason ia the logic of the Tribunal fhat fhe Insurance Compaay is only liable to pay compensation, if there is breach of eoiididon of fhe uisuraace poUcy within fhe kaowledge of fhe owner. The insurance policy of the Tractor was onty for agncultural purpose. It has been held by (he Tribunal fhat the dcceased was not aa agricultural labourer and he had taken lift fiom the driver when bis cycle was punctured aad he traveled on the tractor as a gratuitous passeuger without inakmg aay payment of fare. Whether ftie owner of the Tractor had knowledge or not is u-relevant. The Insiirance Company had not iusured aoy gratuitous passengers ia the Policy of the Tractor aad fherefore, it cannot be held Mable to pay conipensatton. ,$yh, '-^ ^ -r ^ say^ ^.^/i "sf^/- s 1 ^ 7. In tdew of fhe above, we aUow fhis appeal and exonerate the appeUant iasurance coiapany .from fhe liabilily to pay compensatioa and the impugued award so far as It relates to the directions to pay coinpensation to fhc appcUant iusuraace coinpaay is set aside. However, it wiU be open for fhe c]aunaats to recover the amount of compensatfon fi»m the owner of the Tractor. If any atuount is deposited by the appeUaat, fhe same shall be aUowed to be wifhdrawn by it. However, if fhe amount has already becn paid to the claimaats, it wiU be open for it to recover that ainouxit fiom the owner of the Trafitor. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao