^.- l""l IN THE HZ6H COURT QF -JU&ZCATURE AT BZLA^UR CHHATTES&ARM L. A. (0 N0 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS CLAIAAANTS 1] Narrottam Sinha S/o. Shri Kamta Prasad Sinha, R/o. Village Bhansoz, P.S. Aarang Distt. - Raipur (C.6.) 2] SiP .•»'?-"-.<& •:•••''.^•'^•y Paras Ram Sinha S/o Unknown R/o. Village Bhansoz, P.S. Aarang Distt-. - Raipur(C.6.) (Owner) VCRSUS 1] ., Santoshi Yadav Wd/o. Late. Manoj Kumar Yadav Aged about 20 years. 2] 6ulshan Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar Yadav Aged about 01 years /Dhansai yadav S/o Bisambhar 3] ^^r Yadav Aged about 45 years, &..'• ...,.-^<^v;?' ^yy. '^. •!.9-.-y 4] ( Gauri bai Yadav W/o Dhansai Yadav Aged about 43 years, All above are R/o Village Kosamkhunta, Post - Sanod, P.S. - Aarang bistt. - Raipur (C.6.) (Claimants) ^^- 5] Bajaj Allianz Seneral Insurance Manager, Pandari, Raipur (C.e.) APPFAL UNbFR SFCTTON 173 OF MOTOR VEHTO_E ACT irrr ^e^ '<<!<< ipi'M, g^l+i'Ko, Riciiy^ ^Wv{\ ^hWdR' 7'"""^ 2007 an^r 'VKK ('^SyRvs) sn^i.wl^TO? WI3)R?r'aiIH? GR) ?WIW(to3T^[ i'BLESHRi L..C. <fi<i[<i*ili *<IICTI if IB^ <FI:(<;|< '^aiRpTan^r sj*^. ^w^, -^, HON'BLE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA.^. Manoj Paranjpe, counsei for|the appe!lant& Heard on admission. This appeai u/s 173 of th^ Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been preferred by the owner and ridei^ -th 04.4.2007 passed by 7m Add!. Mot being aggrieved 'oy the award dated ;r Accident Claims Tribuna!; Ralpur, in Ciairn Case No.40/2007 whereby]the learned Ciaims Tribunal has held the appeilants responsible for anjiount of compensatlon. However, the insurance company has been exor|erated from its liabstity The brieffacts giving rise to|th!s appeai are that on 19.6.2005 whiie appeilant no.1, hsrein, was Regn.No.C.G.04-CD-9928, in ra motorcycle hit against a standi| riding the motorcycie bearing it +hs sn ana negligent manner, tne saifl ig rickshaw on V.i.P. Road, viilage Fundhar, as a result of which Marloj Yadav who was a piilion rider on the motorcycie sustained grievous irljuries, resultantiy he d;ed. Appeliant no.2 herein is the owner of the mjitorcycie. The motorcycie was insured with respondent no.s/Bajaj AliianzlGenerai Insurance Company Ltd. Having heard counsel for|ths appei.iants, we have perused the contents of the poiicy. The poiicypssued in favour of appeiiant no.2 was a statutory poHcy and for piilion ri therefore, t'ne Insurance Compan pil'ion rider Manoj Yadav and the ^Q C\i the Insurance t;ompany. '"-OjJO. ^aer, no additionai prernium Vi'as paid, ,.' cannot be held iiabie for the death of learned Tribuna! has rightiy sxonerated s'sq' •<ii-4i<>'>*i, ®Tfly'i<s,Ric>i'y^< . M-A-^. N10- %t 3n^?r iraq; (4»)t-j»i<8T) Wl. 200^ •OT^'B.^ll^li?? wnaiRnigffiR? Radi ^iiw^toOT^r -•Z-- We are fortffied in our vi^w by the decision of the Apex Court reported in.the matter of United If^ -vs- Tiiak Singh and others, 2< said judgment, the Apex Court he| in Asha Rani's case [(2003), carrying passengers in a goocis v^ force to gratuitous passengers ir| Lordships upheid the contention it owed no iiabiiity towards the inji< Sing'n who v/as a piliion rider, a; poiicy, and hence it did nof cove) iratuitous passengers. The appeal being devoid o^ same is accordingiy dismissed. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge l»l«ll<'1«<lllllfif tf f^S <fa<^l< ^siRn aii^i AIR SCW 1822. In para 21 of the d that although the obsen/ations made SCC 2231 were in connection with ihicle, the same v/ouid appiy with equal any other vehicle also. Thus, Their the appellant-lnsurance Company that riss suffered by the deceased Rajender the insurance Poiicy was a statutory the risk of death of or bodily injury to merits is llabie to be dismissed and the Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50.UOO.