"^ ;i. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL rCINO. l^"7 /2011 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 APPELLANT OWNER Vijay Dubey S/o Late Shri N.K. Dubey, aged abcut 34 years, R/o New Colony, Gayanagar - Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT \ \ \^.^ ^-^^ ^ r^y^ ^^ o ^f DRIVER INSURER Lokesh, aged about 15 ye^rs^ being minor represented through' vfather Toran Lodhi, S/o Baladram Lodhi, aged about 32 years R/o village - Jhuranadi, P.S. 85 Tahsil - Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Bhuneshwar S/o^ Derharam Yadav, aged about 23 -years R/o Village Bhatapara Chhuikhadan, P.S. & Tahsil - Chhuikhadan, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) The New India Assurance Company Limited, through - its Divisional Manager, Thakkar Chamber, Power House, G.E. Road, Bhilai, District - Durg [C.G.]. /- A' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR Misc. Aopeal (Q No. 187 of 2011 ABpeUant/ Owner Respondettts/ CIaiinaiit Vijay Dubey Ver»us AopeUaat/ Owaer Lokesh & others Misc. Appeal (Q No. 188 of 2011 : Vijay Dubey Ver»u» Responideate/ Claima^t AooeUant/ Ownw : Ishwari & others Misc. Anoeal (Q No. 189 of 2011 Vijay Dubey Re»Dondeut»/ Ver»us Nanhu & ofhers ADpeUaat/ Own.es Misc.Aopeal fQ No. 190 of2011 : Vijay Dubey Veraus Respondente/ Claimant Aataiarani & ofhers AooeUant/ Owner Mjsc, Appeal (Q No. 218 of 2011 : Vijay Dubcy Ver»ir Respondente/ Clalniant Krishna Kiunar Dhruv & ofhers AppeUant/ Owner Misc. Aooeal f0 No. 221 of2011 Vijay Dubey Respoiidents/ Claimaat Versiui Ramesh & otfaers Misc. Appeal under Section 173 offhe Motor Vehicles Act 8B: Hon*ble Sluri Jiwtice W. K. Preaent : Shri AL Singroul, Advocate fot the appeUant/owner. Shri Manoj Choulian, Advocate for rcspondent No. ^, Shri Shn Abhishek Shanaa, Advocate for rcspoudent No. 2/Driver. Shri Sourabh Shanna, Advocate tbr respondent No. 3/Insuraace Company. ORALAWARD (Paased on 25.04.2011) 1. Wifh fhe consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finaUy. 2. By this common awaid, MA(C) Nos. 187/11, 188/ 11, 189/11, 190/11, 218/11 and 221/11 are being disposed of as the common facts & issues are involved in all fhese appeals and arc arise out of same accident. 3. These appeals have been dirccted by fhe owner of flxe vehicle against the award dated 29.11.2010, passed by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (for short <fhe Tribuuial1) in claim cases preferrcd by fhe clauiiants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MVAcf). 4. Brief facts of fhe case arc that: on 27.04.2008, due to rash and negUgent driviag of driver of Maruti Vaa bearmg Chassis No. 1021047 aad Engine No. 3943914, the said Maruti Van turaed turtle as a i^sult ofwhich aU fhe claunants/ (respondent No. l ia aU fhe appeals) sustaiaed multipte injuries. 5. AU the claim.ants preferred claiin petitions claimmg compensation for the mjuries sustained by thiem in the said accident against fhe driver, owner and insurer of fhe Van in question, '•:.y ^'/ • 8. The Tribunal, on a close scrutmy of fhe evidence led, material placed and submissions made J>y the parties, held : accident occurred due to rash and negligent driviag ofdriver ofoffending vehicle ia which above nained claiuiants sustaiaed Diultiple iajiuies and also sustained pennanent disabilily, assessed compensatten aad awarded Rs. 31,455/- in MA(C) No. 187/11, Rs. 27,000/- in MA(C) No. 188/11, Rs. 85,888/- in MA(C) No. 189/11, Rs. 27,000/- in MA(C) No. 190/11, Rs. 85,084/- in MA(C) No. 218/11 and Rs. 89,312/- in MA(C) No. 221/11 in favour of claimants payable by the appeUant/owner aad driver offhe ofifendmg vehicle along with interest @ 6 percent finom fhe date of appUcation tiU its payinent, exonerated fhe msiirance coxnpany fixwm its Uabilily to pay coinpensation to the claiinants holdiag occupaats of fhe car are not covered under the poUcy, Shri AL Siagroul, leamed counsel appearing for fhe appeUaat/owner of fhe oflFendmg vehicle would submit: the policy in question is a package policy which covers fhe risk of occupaats of fhe vehicle, but the tribunal has wrongly exonerated the msurance company from its Ilabitity to pay comLpensation to the claimante retyiag upon its false plea fhat occupaats are not covercd under fhe policy, and therefore, fhe appeal deserve to be allowed. Shri Sourabh Sharma, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/msuraiice compaay would admit, the policy is package poUcy which covers fhe risk of claimants. He would further submit as per circular No. IRDA/NL/CIR/P&U/ 073/11/2009, issued by Insurance Regulatory aad ' Development Authority, which is bmding on aU fhe insuraace ^ 4 coxnpany, risk ofoccupant ofprivate car is covered in a package poUcy. He would further subxnit insurance company has already paid O.D- claun preferred by ihe owner. 9. I have heard fhe counsel appearing for fhe parties, perused fhe ?• award impugned aad records offhe Tribunal. 10. It appears that, the msurance company took a plea that policy did not cover fhe risk of claimants, who are occupants of fhe private car, ignoring circular No. IRDA/NL/CIR/P&U/ 073/11/2009, therefore, the tribunal has grossty erred in exoneratmg fhe iasiiraiice company fix)in its Uability to pay compensation in fhe mstant case where poUcy is package policy. 11, For the reasons mentioned hereiaabove, fhe appeals deserve to be and are herby allowed. Respondent No.S/Insurance Coinpaay is also held liable for payment of coinpensation jouifly and severaUy vrith appellant/owner aad respondent No.2/ driver, Respondent No.S/Insuraace Coinpaay is graated two months time for payment of compensation to tiie claimants. Other conditions ofaward shall rcmain intact. Amount paid by the appellant shaU be refiinded. 12. Accordingty, impugned awaxd dated 29.11.2010 is modified to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu