'^T"-"f;^-;'-~:—~S"^."^^^—^~ paf^F ^l^ '^ r^ i».J^ ' <? ^ •S^CJ£o.^if!U*:2'';l;-':;';.aS.y-..' ,.f-y.^-'HSf"V-^JS£!:"^IWIS' - ?T^fO ^- t^r- BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fCl No. ^l3 1200S ^ APPELLANT :1. IFFCO- TOKIO GENERAL DEFENDANT N0.3 INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, through the Branch Manager, Iffco-^ \..|.0 y ^ Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd, .....l-^"^""^^^' 3rd Flooi^ 345-347, Lalganga Shopping B^- ^":'^'^n •-•:''7r'2!?-' Mal' G-E Road RcliPur (CG) ^ST" !.-!v\-f^'t 8^a-"" VERSUS RESPONDENTN0.1 CLAIMANT N0. 1 1.0 Radheshyam S/o Bhukhan, Aged about t 45 years RESPONDENT N0.2 CLAIMANT N0. 2 2.^ Smt. Mangali Bai W/o Radheshyam, Aged about 38 years 4 RESPONDENT N0.3 CLAIMANT N0. 3 p3 Tupesh Kumar, S/o Radheshyam , Aged about 12years RESPONDENT N0.4 CLAIMANT N0. 4 4.^ Ku. Tupeshwari S/o Radheshyam Aged about 9 years RESPONDENT N0.5 CLAIMANT N0. 5 j 5.^ Krishna S/o Radheshyam , Aged about . 8 years (All resident of Village Sunsuniya, Police Station - Bagbahra , Tehsil and District - Mahasamund ( C. G.) k^ RESPONDENT N0.6 DEFENDANT N0. 1 6^ Parmeshwar S/o Sishat, Aged about 22 years, Resident of Village - Hathigarh, Chowki Patewa, Police Station - Tumgaon , Tehsil and District - Mahasamund ( C. G.) (Driverof Tractor having registration no. f CG 04 D A 4472 and Trolley having PAGE Alo ecasissiwii^^.^-,H^-,^^.. ^.^ registration No. CG 06 8340) ^ RESPONDENT N0.7 7. Rajesh Jain S/o Tejpal Jain, Resident of DEFENDANT N0.2 ^ Main Road - Bagbahra, Through Jain Electricals Bagbahra, Police Station -^' Bagbahra , Tehsil and District - Mahasamund ( C. G.) (Owner of Tractor having registration no. CG 04 D A 4472 and Trolley having registration No. CG 0^834C MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 ^^ ff HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.C No. 409 of 2009 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL JNSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS Radheshyam & others (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present Shri YS Thakur, Advocate forthe appellant. Shri CK Sahu, Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 5. Shri Vinod Tekam, Advocate for r^pondent No. 6. S||| SP Sahu, Advocate for respondent No. 7. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 23.09.2011) 1. This is insurer's appeai against the award dated 26.12.2007 passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') Sn claim case No. 69/07. 2. As against compensation of Rs. 19,20,000/- claimed by unfortunate parents, brothers and sisters of deceased Mukesh Kumar Thakur by filing application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the MV Act') for the death of deceased in the motor accident on 24.03.2007, the Tribunal assessed and awardeda total sum of Rs. 2,42,000/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. Admittedly the appellant/insurance company did not file any written statement. 1 ,,5:-^^^ "%.. IB—» 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor-trolley bearing registration No. CG-04-DA-4472 & CG-06-8340; Mukesh Kumar Thakur died on account of injuries sustained in the said accklent; appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation; assessed and awarded aforesaid sum as compensation in favour of claimants as against the appellant/lnsurance Company. 5. Shri YS Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit : although theappellant did not file any written statement in the case, but as per policy of insurance (Ex. D/5) the deceased who was sltting in the Tractor-trolley as a labourer was not covered under the polioy. Under the statutory policy, the insurance company is not required to cover such risk nor has undertaken such ristes by ertertng into special contract with the owner of the vehicle by charging extra premium therefor. He would further submit the respondent/owner of the vehicle also could not establish insurance policy (Ex. D/5) covers the risk of labour sitting in the tractor-trolley, and therefore, the Trlbunal has erred in fastening the liability upon the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Shri CK Sahu, Shri Vinod Tekam and Shri SP Sahu, learned counsel appearing for claimants, driver and -WS% j ^•^^^' owner of the vehicle respectively, supported the award impugned and submitted : the appellant/insurance company did not file any written statement nor led any evidence in support of defence being taken in the instant appeal, and therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in fastening liability upon the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants and award impugned does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the award impugned as well as record? ofthe Tribunal. 8. Undisputedly the deceased Mukesh Kumar Thakur was sitting in the Tractor-trotley as its labourer. It js also not in dispute insurance policy (Ex. D/5) does not cover the risk of coolie as no premium has been taken by the insurance company covering the risk of coolie sitting in the Tractor-trolley. 9. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of the Tracrtor-trolley to get his vehicte insured for any labour sitting in it and the insurer would have no liability therefor. 10. In view of above the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liabillty upon the appellant/insurance company. 11. For the reasons mentloned hereinabove, the appeal is allowed jn part. The award is set aside against the appellant/lffoo Tokio General Insurance Company Umited. Theaward is modified to -.- ^^ Sahu ^ ^^ the extent that now the appellant/insurance company is not liable for payment of compensatlon to the claimants. 12. The claimants/respondent No. 1 to 5 are free to execute the award against the owner of vehicle. The appellant/insurance company is also free to recover the amount already deposited by it from the owner of the vehicle by filing exeoution petition before the concerned Claims Tribunal. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge