IN THE HIGH COURT OF/CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Ml — ‘ D.B. APPELLANT: - Gopi Chand Patel, Age:- Yrs. {Non-applicant no.2] S/ O:— Kheduram Patel, R/ O Village:—Kasibahara, Post—Sonasilli, P.S:—Pithora, ‘2' Tahsil 8a District:— Mahasamund, (C.G.) [Owner ofthe Gama Vehicle>N0. C.G.—04/H/ 3990] :VERSUS: RESPONDENTS: - 1. x The New India Insurance Com.Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Divisional Office at Madina Building, Jail Road, Katchari-Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur[C.G.] [insurance Com. ofthe Gama VehicleNo. C.G.-04/H/ 3990] 2. Loknath Patel, Age:-.25 Years. \ S/O Shri Kanhaiyalal Patel, R/ O Villagez- Rampur, RS. Pithora, District :— Mahasamund, [C.G.] [Driver ofthe Gama VehicleNo. C.G.-04/H/ 3990] r (Claimant no.1.) 3. Kumari Bai, Age:— 35 Yrs, W/ O Late Bisheshar Yadav, 4. Mukesh Yadav, Agez— 2O Yrs, S/O Late Bisheshar Yadav, [Claimant no.3.) 5. (Ku. Mukeshri, Ager—‘18 Yrs, D/O Late Bisheshar Yadav, All the above Resp.3 to 5, are the R/ O Village:- Rampur, RS. Pithora, Tahsil 85 K District:— Mahasamund, (C.G.) (Claimant no.2.) sc.APPEAL c No.: \‘V' v t -: MEMO OF MISC.APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. :- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, J. M.A.(C) No.1324 OF 2008 Appellant Gopi Chand Patel (Non-applicant No.2) Respondents The New India lnsurance Com. Ltd. and others Present: Mr. JA Lohani, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.1/insurance company. None for respondents No. 2 to 5. though sewed. Vs ORDER (Oral) (12m July, 2011) 1'. This appeal has been med by the appellantlowner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 2.4.2008 passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, (in short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 96/2007, fastening liability upon the appellant/owner to pay the amount of compensation, which is in excess of Rs.1 lac and holding liability of respondent Not/insurance company to the extent of Rs.1 lac only. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 4.6.2007 at about 7 pm, deceased Bishesar along with his friends of the village namely Talikram Dhruv and Kulesh Patel was going to Jhalap from his Village : Rampur by vehicle Gama No. CG 0‘4~H-3990 in connection with some urgent work. .Respondent No.2/drlver by driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner turned it turtle near Village : Kurubhanta, as a result of which deceased Bishesar Yadav died on the spot. At the time of accident, the vehicle in question was owned by the appellant, driven by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.1/insurance company. Report of the accident was lodged at Police Station : Pithoura, whereupon Crime No.129/07 was registered under Section 304A of the IPC and after completion of investigation, charge sheetwas med before the Court. . At the time of accident, the deceased was 42 years and he was a mason by profession and thereby earning Rs.200/- per day. Therefore, the claimants by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”) claimed a total , @V compensation of Rs.17,40,000/— under different heads against the death of Bishesar Yadav. 4. Heard learned counse! for the respective parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. 5. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant/owner Shri JA Lohani, is that there is no dispute in respect of vehicle in question being insured with respondent No.1/insurance company during the relevant time. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly interpreted that the liability of respondent Not/insurance company in respect of occupant of the vehicle is limited to Rs. 1 lac only, whereas as per contract of insurance and the provisions of Sections 147 & 149 of the Act, the liability of respondent (f No.1/insuance company is unlimited in respect of 3'“ party. Except 3 this, no other point has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal. 3 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent Not/insurance company Shri Sudhir Agrawal, supporting the impugned award, has contended that the liability of respondent Not/insurance company $7 is governed by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and it is wrong to say that the deceased, who at the relevant time was one of the occupants of the vehicle in question, was a 3rd party. 7. lt is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was one of the occupants in the vehicle in question, which was being rashly and negligently driven by respondent No.2/driver. As the deceased was a occupant of the said vehicle, which had turned turtle on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2/driver, the deceased cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as a 3'“ party. ln this factual situation, the liability of the insurance company will be subject to the terms and conditions embodied in the insurance policy. 8. The insurance policy is in the record of Claim Case No.96/07 and the same has been marked as Ex.D/1. From perusal of the insurance policy (Ex.D/‘l) and its schedule of premium, it is clear that respondent No.1/insurance company has charged Rs.450/~ as premium for P.A..(Pe,rsonal Accident) to unnamed passengers, 9 in number (Rs.50/- per person, subject to a maximum of 9 persons), and for each person traveling in the said vehicle, personal accident coverage up to Rs. 1 lac has been granted. . ln view of the above, respondent No. ‘l/insurance company in case of death of deceased, who was one of the occupants in the vehicle in question, is liable to pay the maximum amount of Rs.1 lac as compensation. Therefore, by limiting the liability of respondent Not/insurance company to Rs. 1 lac in the impugned award, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality, infirmity or error of law and has rightly held that the amount of compensation exceeding Rs. 1 lac is to be paid by the appellant/owner of the vehicle in question. 10.ln the result, the appeal being devoid of any substance deserves to be and is. accordingly, dismissed. 11.lt is made clear that out of Rs. 2,92,000l- awarded by the Tribunal, Rs.1 lac along with interest shall be paid by respondent No.1/insurance company and the balance amount of compensation along with interest shall be paid by the appellant/owner. Both the appellant/owner and respondent Not/insurance company shall deposit their respective amounts within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the Tribunal. ln case, the entire amount has already been deposited, the concemed party peed n.ot.deposit any amount. In case, part payment has been made, then the remainder along with interest shall be paid within the period abovementioned. 12. No order as to costs. \l‘ Sd/- 13.Certified copy as per rules. G. Minhajuddin Judge kkuum