't- HON'BLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT M.A.j(X3)No.- g6S/ £<<ysN BRANCH MANAGER,' THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIV1SIONAL OFFICE, MADINA BUILDING, JA1L RAOD, RAIPUR, DISTT.- RAIPUR (INSURER COMPANY OF VEHICLE N0. C.G. 04-D.A. 3620 & TROLLEY N0.- C.G. 04 D.A. 3621 ) Vrs. RESPONDENTS ^'&^y 9^y :-1. 'THARI RAM S/0 KURSO AGE ABOUT 60 YRS., 2. ^TAGMOTI D/0 HARI RAM AGE ABOUT 55 YRS., 3. /SAGUNA BAI W/0 LATE SUKHDEO AGE ABOUT 25 YRS. 4. ^BHOJRAM S/0 LATE SUKHDEO AGE ABOUT 06 YRS. 5. ^KU. BHUNESWARI D/0 LATE SUKHDEO AGE ABOUT 04 YRS. RESPONDENT OF N0.- 4 & 5 THROUGH GUARDIAN, RESPONDENT OF N0.- 3 SAGUNA BAI W/0 LATE SUKHDEO, ALL OF CASTE- TELI, RESPONDENT NO.-l TO 5 ARE VILLAGE MEMRADIH, TUANiH'Fr-HORI, TAHSIL & DISTT.- MAHASAMUND, frtA-.<'t (7cT"H£>fi..A- PRESENT ADDRESS - VILLAGE RAJKATTI, CHOUKY-FINGESHWAR, THANA RAZIM, TAHSIL & DISTT.- RA1PUR C.G. VASUDEO SAHU S/0 SADANAND SAHU AGE ''^.^f" ^ ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MILARAVAD , THANA- BASANA, MAHASAMUND C.G. TAHSIL & DISTT.- ^' 7.' (DRIVER OF VEHICLE TRACTOR N0.- C.G. 04 D.A. 3620)^ KANHAIYA AGRAWAL S/0 R.K. AGRAWAL, AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS. RESIDENT OF BASANA, TAHSIL & DISTT.- MAHASAMUND C.G., (REGISTERED OWNER OF VEHICLE TRACTOR N0.- C.G. 04 D.A. 3620, & VEHICLE TROLLEY N0.- C.G. 04 D.A. 3621) APP1TAT TTNnTR srrTTON 173" OF MQTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 st!s HIQHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BttASPUR MISC. APPEAI, (Q N0. 868 Of 2007 APP3SUANT Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Hari Ram and ofhers. APPEAJ^Um3EaSECTIQN173QFTHEMGTQRyBHICii,ES ACT,1988 D.B.; Hon'ble Shri I.M. Qudausii & Hon'ble Shri Q. Miahaiuddia, JJ. Present; Shri Sudhu' Agi'awal, counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents, fhough served. ORAL ORDBR (Passed on 14th day of September, 2011} Per I.M. Quddusi, J. List is belag revised. No one is present on behalf ot' the respondents. Therefore, we proceed ex-parte agaiast them.. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appeBant - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against ti.ie Impugned award dated 03-05-2007 passed by the Additioual Motor Accident Claims Trib-anal, Gai'iyaband, Distrlct-Ralpiu" (for short tlie Claims Tribunal') m Claim. Case No. 90/2006 fastei-ting tlie UabiUty upon it to pay compensatlon to fhe clalmants join(ly and severaUy aiong with ttre owner aad driver of the offending vehicle Tractor-troUey bearkig registration No.C.G.04- D.A./3620 aiid C.G. 04-D.A./3621. 3. Brief facts of fhe case are tliat fhe appllcaiits/claimants ai'e fafher, mofher, wtfe and minor cliildren of fhe deceased Sukhdeo. Non-applicant No.l was driver, non-applicant No. 2 was registered owner and non-applicairt No. 3 was tasm'er of tl-ie offending velucle (Tractor-ti'oHey). Ou 25-09-2006, deceased Suldidev Sahu was traveliag in the Tractor wliich was bemg driven by the non-appllcant No.l, in a rash an ^A ¥ negugent maruier thereby (he deceased SuMidev Sahu, who was sitting beside the driver, feU down and died on the spot. 4. The clakuants being legal heirs of (lie deceased had Qled a petition before tlie Claims Tribmial iiiider Section 166 oftlw Motor Veliicles Act, 1988 (for short the Acf) claunlng a total compensation of Rs.47,70,000/- for the death of flie deceased. 5. The Clakas Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evMence led, material placed aiid submissions made by bofh flie pai'tles, has awai'ded aii amouiit of Rs. 5,28,936/'- as coinpensation to fhe claimants along wifh Interest @ 6% per annum froiu fhe date of applicatlon tUl its payiaenL 6. We liave heeu'd leai-ned coiinsel for the appellaiit and perused (he record of the Clauas Tribunal 'as well as fhe impugned awar-d. 7. From penisal of the record, it is clear- tliat fhfi deceased was sittuig in the tractor. The CertUlcate of Registratton shows tliat seatuig capacity is oiily for one person i.e. no other person caii sit in. the tractor except one. The Insurance Company has also not permitted any other person to sit inslde the Tractor and therefore, if fhe deceased was sitting in the Ti-actor, it was a clear cut breach of the conditions of msui-ance policy. 8. In view of the above reason, the appeUant/Insuranee CompaxT.y could not liave teeu held Uable to pay esiy compeusation to flie claimaiits. Therefore, lem'ned Claims Tribuiial has committed a maiitfest en'or of law ja fasteiiiiig the Uability upon the appellaiit/lnsuraiice Compaiiy. 9. In tlie result, fhe appeal filed by fhe appellaiit/Insuraiice Compaiiy is allowed, flie impugiied awai'd ui so fai' as It relates to fasteniiig of liabllity to pay compensation to tl-ie claimaiits upon the appellant/Insui'ance Company is set aside aiid the appellant/liisufaiice Ctompaiiy ,^.^^-^:^ \ l ?y'^ 'A< E" S, A ^SSSSk B ^ f! '^ '''•Ssy^ .^' S?tl. -^ ..^ J ''"'^fw'^y'''" is exonerated from its Uabilily to satisfy ttie impugned award. However, it will be open to fhe claimaiits to i-ecover tiie amount of couipensation fi-oia fhe owner and driver of tlie offenduig veMcle I.e. ti'actor-trolley. 10. The amount jf aiiy, deposited by the appeUant/Insm'aiice Company shatl be refmided to it. to case fl-ie auiount has ali'eady been disbui'sed, then fhe appellant shail be entitied to recover the same from the owner of tliie ofiendiiig vehicle fTractor-Trolley). There sliall be no order as to costs._ J"" Kvr Sd/- I.M.Qiiddusi Judge G.Minhajjudin Judge