BEFGRE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA. N{). ' 5 OF 2004. - a §$gwe ,i :9, ' x;A} ‘ 131: (Chhattisgarh) (eicher tractoriggngy,” (Delar)) 5. Goverdhan Yadav alias Gulapan, son EL of Padmalochan Ram, aged about 55 Contd..2.. r ‘ I \ g: a a w "‘~:¢.y:-y»‘~;a.¢wazgm 4‘ « QséxL \ % ” APPELLANT :— w Branch Manager, ON—APPLICANT NO. 3 United India Insmance C0mpany Ltd., Branch Office, Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG) / V E R S U S iaESPGNDENTS :— 1:,IMst. Harawati Bai, wife ofLate Shishu Kumar 27 ~ Yadav, aged years, Occup— ation Housewife, 2. Minor Girish Kumar,son of Late Shishu g Kumar 11 Kumar Yadav, aged years, 0ccupa— tion Student, 3. Minor Dilip Kumar, Son of Late Shishu Kurnar Yadav, aged 8 years, Occupati— on Student, ' All by'Caste Mahkul, resident of Village Gadabahar, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur (Ch‘nattisgarh) respondent no,2&3 Minors through their natural guardian Mother Mst, Harwati Bai, wife of Late Shishu Kumar Yadav, resident of Village Gadabahar, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur (Chhatnsgarh), CLAEMANTS a A?» 4. Rajendra Singh, Sarguja Motors, y APPE yeaxs, Caste Mahakul, resident of Village Kudukela, Tahsil Kunkuri, Distric§ Jashpur (CG), (Vehicie owner) 6. Padmabchaix, son of Sukhixa Ra , aged ’S \ {V k‘77 yeals, Caste Mahakul, ‘ residerit of Village Kud‘ikem (Gadabahax), Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur (CG), (Vehicle owner) NON-APPLICANT NO. 1,2 8L 3 MOT? VEHECLES ACT 1988 WarW) w J AL UNDER SECTION 173 OF H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR HIG M‘A.No. 1169 of 2004 Brach Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Mst. Harawat Bai and others. i APPELLANT NONPLICANT N0 -AP .3 M.A.No. 1170 of 2004 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus RENTS ESPOND Rajkumar Ram and others. PPLANT -ICANT NO. M.A.No. 1171 of 2004 United India Insurance Comany ‘ Ltd. Versus M. Urmila Bai and others. st AELAT NON-APPLICANT NO.3 M.A.No. 1172 of 204 0 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vers su Mst’ Madhuri Bai an others. d PPELLANT -ANT No. :- HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWL DB A , HON’BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, JJ _ PRESENT :— Shri H.B.Agrawa1, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pragya Singh, Shri J_.K.Shastri, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3, 5 86 6 (in ' Advocate for the appellant. M.A.No.1l69/2004), for respondents No.3 8t 4 (in .A.No.1170/2004, for responents No.5 & 6 in M.AN0.11712004 85 M.A.No.l'172/2004). n RESPONDENTS AEL NONAPPL 3 p PPLN RESPONDENTS A NONAPPLIC 3 RESPONDENTS N M d ( ./ Shri Roshan Verma, Advocate for respondent N01 8L 2 (in M.A.No.1170/2004) for respondents No.1' to 4 (in M.A.No. 1 171/2004 85 M.A.No.1l72/2004) O RAL O R D ER (16.11.2010) er N.K. Agarwal, J.r Heard flnally. 2. A11 the above Miscellaneous Appeals i.e. M.A.No. 1169/2004, .A.No. 1 170/2004, M.A.No. 1 171/2004 and M.A.No. 1 172/2004- are arising out of same accident, and therefore, since common questions of law are involved, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. Facts, in 'a nutshell, in all the aforesaid cases, are that on 25.02.2003 Thuma Ram; ' Dev Singh and Devcharan were ’‘r‘ave'llirig *“in‘wv'tthe” tractor trolley bearing registration No.C.G.14A/O419 (for short ‘the tractor’) as gratuitous passengers. ’ Shishu Kumar was driving the above tractor, which met with an accident, as a result of which, all the 3 persons travelling in the said tractor and the driver Shishukumar died. 4. Claimants, being legal representatives of the deceased ~ Shishukumar, Thuma Ram, Devcharan and Dev Singh preferre claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Ac claiming compensation of Rs.25,10,000/— in claim case No.‘ 01/2004 (of legal heirs of Shishukumar), Rs.16,35,000/- in claim case No‘ 45/2004 (ef'legai‘‘h‘e'i‘r‘s‘ of Tiiilhi'a Ram); R's.12',6o,ooo/- in claim case No.43/2004 (of legal heirs of Devcharan) and Rs.13,55,000/- in claim case No.44/2004 (of legal heirs of Dev Singh). 5. All the parties led their evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal. a 6. Learned Claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and material placed, awarded - P M t d t 3V compensation to the tune of vRs.3,l8,000/—in claim case No. 01/2004 (legal heirs of deceased Shishukumar), Rs.2,22,000/— in claim case No.43/2004 (legal heirs of Devcharan, Rs.2,22,000/— in claim case No. 44/2004 (legal heirs of Dev Singh and. 5 Rs.2,46,000/— ‘in claim case No. 45/2005 (legal heirs of Thuma Ram) and held that the appellant Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation. 7. Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing fOr the appellant / Insurance Company would submit that so far as the case of the deceased driver — Shishukumar 1s concerned the learned Claims Trlbunal has categorically held that he himself was neghgent 1n dr1v1ng the said tractor and the pos1t10n of law is well settled that a person cannot be benefited of his own wrong, therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased driver — ‘Shishukurnar are only entitled to compensation under no fault compensation” under ‘ ‘S‘ecti6iimi4bf ('4')‘ ‘ 6f the Motor Vehicles Act, which [amount had already been paid to the claimants. The learned Claims Tribunal has Wrongly fastened the liability to pay entire compensation upon the appellant Insurance Company. 8. So far as the other connected appeals are concerned, Shri H’B.»Agrawal, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company would contend that the deceased - Thuma Ram, Devcharan and Dev Singh were (gratuitous passengers sitting in the Said tractor trolley. The risk of sitting persons as gratuitous passengers was neither statutorily required to be covered under he Motor Vehicles Act nor is covered by the Insurance Company by taking extra premium therefor, andl‘thereforet the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly. fastened the liability to pay compensation upon the Insurance Company. 9 . _On the other hand, Shri J.K.Shahstri and; Shri Roshan erma, learned counsel appearing for other respondents supported the impugned award. \,‘(\ t V 10. We have heard learned counsel appearin for the parties at length and have perused the impugned award and record of the Tribunal. 11. Indisputably, the accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased driver Shishukumar, who was driving the said tractor trolley at the time of accident. Law is well settled that a person cannot be benefitted for his own wrong. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Premvlata Shukla and others, 2007 AIR SCW 3591 it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it i sine qua non to prove the negligence of the driver. But in the instant case, the deceased — Shishukumar was himself driver o the said tractor trolley and the tractor trolley was being driven negligently by the deceased — Shishukumar, as a result of which, the accident has occurred, and therefore, the claimants (legal heirs 9f. Shi$hukumaxl . are. Rnlxf mtitbd $0. ..Rs,..5.0,OOQ/ which was already paid to them under Section 140 of the Motdr Vehicles Act and not entitled for the amount which has been awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal over and above the amount of Rs.50,000/— 12. As regards the other ‘ three deceased — Thuma Ram, Devcharan and Dev Singh und1sputedly, they were travelling 1 the said tractor trolley as gratuitous passengers They were employees of the contractor whose buildlng material was bein transported through the said tractor, therefore, the aforesai deceased Were not labourers of the tractor trolley 'but were. gratuitous passengers sitting in the said tractor trolley. The risk o which is not statutorily required to be covered by the appellan Insurance Company 'under Section 147 of the M VAct Further, the Slttlng capac1ty 1n tractor trolley ls only for one 1 e drlver an there is no srttlng capac1ty for other persons The trolley attached to the tractor 1s not meant for carrylng passengers Mr. J.K.Shahstri and Mr. Roshan Verma, learned counsel for th respondents have not been able to show that the appellant g s f n g d f i' t d e nsurance Company has-undertaken such risk by charging extra premium. Thus, we are of the con51dered Vlew that the appellant Insurance Company 1n all the above cases has wrongly been held l1able for payment of compensatlon. l3. For the foregoing reasons, in our considered opinion the appeals preferred by the appellant / Insurance Company are hable to be and are allowed 1n part We hold that the 1mpugned award passed agalnst the appellant Insurance Company over and above the amount of Rs.50,000/- in claim case No. 01/2004 M.A.No.l 169/2004) is set aside. The claimants (legal heirs of the ( ‘ deceased Shishukumar, who was driving the tractor at the time o accident) are entitled to only Rs 50 000/— as compensation under no fault liability, which the appellant / Insurance Company 1s directed to pay The 1mpugned award 1n so far as 1t relates to the liability of payment of compensation fastened upon the Insurance ompany in claim case No 43/2004 (MA No 1171/2004), claim case No 44/2004 (M.A.No.1172/2004 and 1n claim case No. 45/2004 (M.A.No.ll70/2004) is'hereby set"aside. However, it is open for the claimants, in the above cases, to recover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the driver and owner. of the offending vehlcle by filing execution proceedings against them before the concerned Tr1bunal 1 4. In View of the above, the appellant Insurance Company is exonerated However if the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal has already been depos1ted by the appellant Insurance Company and disbursed to claimants in above cases then the appellant Insurance Company 1s at liberty to recover the same fromlzthe owner of the said tractor by filing execution before the concerned Tribunal. 15. No order as to costs. Sd/— R.L. Jhanwar Judge " e Sdl- N. K. Agarwal Judge I f C