3^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATESGARH, BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R. L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1473/2007 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS Smt. Meera Bai and others. Versus RESPONDENTS : NON-CLAIMANTS Govind Singh Maravi and another. Misc. ApHeal(C) No. 22/2008 APPELLANT United India Insurance Corupany. Versus RESPONDENTS : Smt. Meera Bai and others. ^;' N ORDER Post for oronouncement on 1 \ Julv, 2010 JUDGE 24_/7/2010 \ lEE ;- ^.^1 .\ '-:,' ...7~T^. ^sw 32 'v.sf' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JH^NWAR, J. APPELLANTS CLA1MANTS RESPONDENTS APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT N0.2 RESPONDENTS IVl.A.(C)No. 1473 of 2007 1. Smt. Meera Bai, Wd/o Late Mukutram, aged about 26 years. 2. Kailash Kumar, S/o Late Mukutram, aged about 6 years. 3. Ku. Koshni, S/o Late Mukutram, aged about 4 years. 4. Gayaprasad, S/o Haridas, aged about 55 years. 5. Smt. Surtiyabai, W/o Gayaprasad, aged about 52 years No.2 & 3 minors, through natural guardian mother Meera Bai, Wd/o Mukutram. All Resident of Village Baheramuda, Chowki-Belgahna, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Govind Singh Maravi, S/o Darbari Singh Maravi, R/o. Qtr. No. M/552, Vikas Nagar, Kusumunda, District Korba (C.G.) 2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Divisional Office - Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Wl.A. (G) No. 22of 2008 United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Divisional Office - Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Smt. Meera Bai, Wd/o Late Mukut Ram, aged about 26 years. 2. Kailash Kumar, S/o Late Mukut Ram, aged about 6 years. 3. Ku. KoshAni, S/o Late Mukut Ram, aged about 4 years. 4. Gayaprasad Choudhary, S/o Haridas, aged about 55 years. \: ;;a!l. z 5. Smt. Surtiyabai, W/o Gayaprasad, aged about 52 years Respondents No.2 & 3 are minors, through natural guardian mother Smt. Meera Bai. All Respondents No.1 to 5 are R/o Village Baheramuda, Chowki-Belgahna, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) CLAIMANTS 6. GovindSingh Maravi, S/o Darbari Singh Maravi, R/o. Qtr. No. M/552, Vikas Nagar, Kusumunda, District Korba (C.G.) (Registered owner of Motorcycle No. C.G. 12-H 8079) NON-APPLICANT N0.1 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988 Appearance: Shri Gautam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellants in both the appeals. Ms. Seema Saggar, counsel for respondent No.1 in M.A.(C) No.1473/2007 and respondent No.6 in M.A.(C) No.22/2008. Shri H.B.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri PankajAgrawal, counsel for the appellant in M.A.(C).No.22/2008 respondent No.2 in M.A.(C) No. 1.473/2007. ORDER (Passedon^ .07.2010) By this common order M.A.(C)No. 1473/2007 and M.A.(C) No.22/2008 are being disposed of as the same are arising out of order dated 13th September, 2007 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (in short 'the Tribunal) in Claim Case No.18 of 2007 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.l,95.000/- as compensation to the claimants. 2. Brief facts for necessary disposal of this appeal are that on 03.11.2006 Mukutram went to ffleet Govind Singh Maravi at his in-laws' house where upon the sister of Govind Singh Meravi felt unwell . suddenly, therefore, Govind Singh Maravi directed Mukutram to bring doctor from Dhanauli by giving his motorcycle \; bearing registration No.C.G.12 H 8079 (henceforth 'the niotorcycle'). Mukutram and one Jagdish Choudhari started going to Dhanuli. As soon as they reached Matachowra at 9.30 a.m. near Dhanuli, all of sudden stampede in group of animals took place and two of the animals were fighting with each other. The motorcycle being driven by the Mukutram reached the spot where combating animals came over the road suddenly and Mukutram dashed against thera, on account of which, the raotorcycle slipped and got dashed the slab of platform {Chabutare} and heads of both Mukut Ram and Jagdish knocked the slab of the platform severely and died on the spot. 3. Legal. representatives of Mukut Ram filed a claim pedtion before the Tribunal seeking corupensation ofRs.4,87,000/- against the owner of the motorcycle and insurance company on the ground that the incident took place because of the owner of the motorcycle - Govind Singh Maravi, upon whose direction Mukut Ram and Jagdish went to Dhanuli to bring doctor. By filing written statements, both the respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition. 4. After affording the opportunity and hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum ofRs.1,95,000/- as compensation to the claimants and fastened the liability to pay the compensation of amount on the insurance company. 5.. Not being satisfied by awarded amount, the claimants have filed appeal for enhancement of compensation. Aggrieved by the impugned order fastening liability on it, the insurance company also preferred another appeal on the ground that at the time of accident the deceased has no valid licence and no premium has also been paid, therefore, no risk was covered in policy of insurance and on these premises, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. \ ^t 6. Learned counsel for the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. argued that on the date of accident owner of the vehicle Govind Singh was not driving his inotor cycle but it was driven by Mukut Ram and Mukut Rara had no valid driving licence at the time of accident. Mukut Ram himself has taken the motor cycle for his own purpose. The motor cycle was insured only in the name of Govind Ram and no premiuni was paid for driver but the premium which was, paid only for owner-driver. Mukut Ram and Jagdish (pillion rider) were not third party, and therefore, no risk was covered by the insurance company under policy of insurance. On these premises, he urged that the insurance company ought to be exonerated. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants stated that the policy was in the name of Govind Singh and Govind Singh has paid premium for owner-driver. He also argued that deceased Mukut Rara was asked by the owner of the motor cycle to call Doctor on his motor cycle because at that time a rnember of his family was feeling not well in house and on the direction of owner - Govind Singh, Mukutram and Jagdish went to call the Doctor. Drawing attention towards clause (3) of Section II - Liability to third parties, it was argued, that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the owner argued that owner is not at all responsible to pay any compensation because the vehicle was insured with the insurance company. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and impugned order of the Tribunal. 10. A.W.l Smt. Meera Bai, wife.of the deceased - Mukut Ram deposed in her evidence that her husband was holding valid driving licence to drive the motor cycle. The Tribunal, after close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, has arrived at a conclusion \; 5' that under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth 'the Acf), it is not necessary to find that the deceased was driving the motor cycle rashly and negligentiy and only the use of motor cycle is sufficient to decide the matter and on this basis the learned Tribunal has held that Mukut Ram has died due to use of the motor cycle. On this point, nothing has been stated before the Tribunal by the other party. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal o'n the above point has attained finality. 11. The motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G. 12 H-8079 was registered in the naine of owner - Govind Rain and was insured with the insurance company i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The insurance policy was exhibited as Ex.D.l. 12. On perusal of Ex.D.l (insurance policy), it is evident that premium of Rs.50/- has been paid for owner-driver and not for other person. The inotorcycle carries only two persons, one is the driver and the other is pillion rider. As stated above, for owner premium of Rs.50/- has been paid and no premium has been paid for any other person. In the present case, it is not the story that Mukut Ram was the paid driver of Govind Singh and was driving the vehicle for Govind Singh. Mukut Ram was driving the motor cycle, which met with an accident. Neither any third party nor any other motor cycle or vehicle was involved. Therefore, the deceased is not a third party. The learned Tribunal has erred in presuming the deceased as third party. In insurance policy, it was shown that premium has not been paid to any third person. Since no premium has been paid for Mukut Ram who was driving the inotor cycle at the time of accident, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to him or his legal representatives. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order fastening liability on the insurance coinpany cannot be sustained and accordingly it is set aside. Consequently, M.A.(C) No.22 of 2008 is allowed. No costs. 14. The appellants/claimants have preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1473/2007 for enhancement of the coinpensation awarded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants argued that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper. According to him, multiplier should be above 18. The Tribunal has wrongly applied the Section 163AoftheAct. 15. The clain-i petition filed by the claimants is under Section 163'bf the Act. Therefore, it is not proper to say that the Tribunal has committed error in applying Section 163 A of the Act. So far as the income of Rs.15,000/- taken by the Tribunal is concerned, it is just and proper and the multiplier of 18 is certainly on the higher side. Thus, there is no question of enhancement. 16. A perusal of the record makes it clear Govind Singh Maravi was. the owner of the motor cycle and the motor cycle was insured with the insurance company. On the date of accident, the motor cycle was being driven by Mukut Rain. In Ex.D.l i.e. insurance policy, it was shown that premium of Rs.50/- has been paid for only owner-driver. It was also mendoned in Ex.D.l that the owner-driver means the registered owner-driver of the motor bike. Thus, since no premium has been paid for the other driver, Mukut Rara, who was driving the motor cycle of Govind Singh on the date of accident, does not at all come in the categoiy of third party and Mukut Ram himself was responsible for the accident. 17. As discussed above, it has already been found that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants i.e. legal heirs of the deceased. In this view of the matter,.when the order fastening liability to pay compensation on the insurance company has been set aside, then there nothing \: .//"•. \<i...1" 38 •'w^" .. ^y ^ remains for the claimants. Accordingly, M.A.(C) No. 1473/2007 filed by the claimants is dismissed. 18. A copy ofthe order be kept in M.A.(C) No. 1473/2007. R.L. Jhaiiwar Judge