HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appellant (Non-aDplicant No.3) Respondents fApDlicantNo.ll fAppiicant No.2l M.A.(Cl.No. 585 of 2008 United india Insurance Compsmy Limited, Through: Branch Manager, Branch-OfRce, Ram Mandir Road, Ambikapur (CG) Versus 1. Shubham Baghel, S/o Late Sanjeet Baghei, aged 14 years, 2. Saurabh Baghel, S/o Late Sanjeet Baghel, aged 10 years, Respondents No.1 & 2 are minor, through their mother, respondent No.5, Yasoda Baghel Botti are R/o Balrampur, Distt. Surguja (CG) 3. Rohitram Baghel, S/o Kanniram Baghel, aged 65 years, 4. Kook Bai W/o Rohitram Baghel, aged 55 years Both are R/o Sarangarh, Kauatai, P.S. & Tah. Sarangarh (CG) 5. Yasoda Baghel Wd/o Late Sanjeet Baghel, aged 34 years, R/o Viltage & Post Balrampur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) Appealunder Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988. (ApDlicantNo.3) fApplicant No.4l (Non-applicant No.2t Present: Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellant. QRALQRDER (Passed on 06.05.2008) Heard on admission. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 8.1 .2008 passed by the 2 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (henceforth 'the Tribunal') in clatm case No. 38/2007 granting interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- against the appellant/insurer u/s 1^K) of the M.V. Act on the principle of no fault liability. 3. ' It is not disputed by the learnedcounsel for the appellant that the Jeep No. C.G. 15 B / 0889'owned by the claimant (non-ap|rficant No.2) and driven by her husband on the date of accident i.e. <?1 13.02.2005 was insured by ttie appellant. It is atso not in dispute that the said jeep dashed against a tree, resulting in the death of driver of the jeep i.e. the husband of the daimant (non-appljcant No.2). It is also not in dispute thatthe deceased/driver possessed an effective and valid driving licence on the date of accident. 4. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer has assailed the impugned order on the ground that under the poljcy of insurance risk of the owner-cum-driver of the vehicte alone was insured. Since the deceased was not a paid employee of the claimant, the insurer was not liable to pay any compensation even under S^tjon 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. tt was also submitted that the deceased/driver was a government servant. Reliance was ptaced on The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Kamalaiochaii Kamalo and others, AIR 1995 Orissa 213. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, 1 amof the considered opinion that this appeal has no merit. The Jeep was insured on the date of accident and the driver of the jeep possessed an efFective and valid driving licence. According to the policy, premium was recovered by the insurer covering the riste of owner-cum-driver. Death of the driver of the jeep in the accident is also not in djspute. In this viewof the matter, 1 am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was justified in awardrng interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- against the appellant/insurer under Section 140 ofthe M.V.Act on the prindple of no fault liability. 6. In that view of the matter, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed at the stage of admission. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 for ^rant of stay and I.A.No.2 for exemption from filing certified copy of the order passed under Section 170 of the M.VAct also stand disposed of. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge