1 i} (2) 'tl^JgJOil IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) M.A.fONo.^7 Of 2006. APPELLANT '.-^The United India Insurance Company NON-APPLICANT N0.3 Limited, Bilaspur, Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS :?^. Smt. Laxmi Bai, aged 30 years, RESPQNDENTS •< Widow ofLate Kalapram Patel, \^f* Q^>^/' .^.^ ^ m /i^ Kumari Lata, aged 12 years, daughter ofLate Kalapram Patel, Tameshwar Kumar, aged 9 years, son ofLate Kalapram Patel, ^. Roshan Kumar, aged 7 years, son of jate Kalapram Patel Respondent no. 2 to 4 being minor through fheir natural guardian mother Smt. Laxmi Bai, widow of Kalapram Patel, All resident of Village Khaira, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), CLAIMANTS i. Satyanarayan Pandey, aged 17 years, son of Vyasnarayan, resident of Village Kodiya, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), 6. Smt. Vrmda Devi, daughter of Shri Ramjivan Pandey, resident of •«':- ^) T^ Village Khapri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), r. Smt. Rajeshwari, daughter of Late Ramjivan Pandey, resident of Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), 8. Smt. Ramabai, daughter of Late Ramjivan Pandey, resident of Village Shankergarh, Tahsil and District Shahdol (M.P.), 9. Smt. Shyama Bai, daughter ofLate Ramjivan Pandey, resident of Nayapara, Golebazar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). NON-APPLICANT N0.1 AND L.R.'s OF NON-APPLICANT N0.2 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. OF AT DIVISION BENCH: MR. JJ. Xppellant Rgspondents M.A.Ec] The United India Insurance Co. Vs Smt. Laxmi Bai & ©thers '. ' " Mr\ H.B. Agarwa!, Sr. Advocate with Mr, Pankaj Agarwal, Adv< for the appeilant. Mr«R.K< Pandey, Advocate for The respondents No.l to 4. Mr. V.K< Sahu/ Advocate for the respondent No.7, (21st Aprll, 2011) .^ T.M.,Qyddvsi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appeIiQnt-Insurance has filed this misceitaneoys dppeal aqamst the jmpu9n®d award 05.08,2006 by th® 10 Addjtiona.! Motor Accident Cbims TribunaJ (FTC), Biiaspur (C&) (for brevjt)/ ithe Claims Trjbunai'') in CJaimCase No,73/2004 allowing claim appiicatjon of the cfasmants, awarding a sum of Rs.6..47,000/- as compensation and directlng the appBJiant-Insurance Company to satisfy the award first and thereafter recover the amount of from theownBr •&driver of the vehicie in question. 3. Facts of fhe in bnef, are that on 16.D<2002 deceased Kalprarn coming.to his yillage Kodiya in the tractor-troliey bearingre'aistration number MP26-EA-1093 & MP26-EA-1094. At the relevant time the said vehjcle was by one Ramjivan Pandey (father of respondent N0,6 to 9 herein), drjven by NoJ herein-and insured by the appellant herein. Due to and drivinQ by the respondent NoJ, the said vehicte turtie jt reached near Viilage &atora, as.a rcsuit, Total tan'persons inciydlng the on the spot< of the accidBnt. jn'the Police Station Masturi. The cbimants, who are and chiidren of the respcctiveiy.. . ciaimed compensation • To' the ' of Rs.28,21.828/- varjous different grounds. .iiar \'- ^ 4, On theplead'mgs of the parties, the Claims Tribunai framed as many as four issues and after hearinq the parties and considering the materjal avathbte ailowed the ciajm petition, awarded a of Rs.6,47,000/-a as corripensation and' directed the apDellQnt-Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicJe in question, 5. We have heard coun^J for the partjes and perused the impugned award' as aiso records of the tribuna! below. 6. The Ctoims Tribunal has exonerateds the appeliant-Insurance Company from jts liabjiity fo pay compensation but side-by-sjde considering the pnnciptes jaid down in the NatJonGS Insuranc®CompQny Vs. Swarn Singh & others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 dlrected that the Insurance Company shalt pay the amount of compensatjon to the claimQnts and thereafter recover the same form the owner of the vehjcie. The judgment of the Hon''bte Supreme Court jn the matter of Swarn Singh (supra) is relateda to third part^ accjdent, whereas the present is not a case of third part^ accident. In the present the deceased2 occupant of the tractor-troitey which being jn violation of the conditions of 'rfie insurance po!jcy as at the. time of accjdent than 10 persons traveling in thc vehicie in questjon whereas there was no sitting capacity in the vehicie in Therefore, the principJes Jajd down jn the Swarn Singh's case (supra) would not be ' in the facts an-d circumstances of the 7. In vjew of the above, direction of the Ciaims Tribunal that the apDeliant- Insurance Company shali first pay the compensation to the claimants and thereafter recover the from the owner, is erroneous. 8. In the result, we ailow this appeal, set asjde the awafd dated 5.8.2006 passed by the Claims Tribunal in Ciaim Case NoJ3/04, so far as it relates to djrectjon that the appeliant-lnsurance Company shal'l first pay the compensation and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle m question, and' held that the appeSlanT - Insurance Company is not iiabte to pay compensation to the claimants involved in the award and the shaJI be by the owner of yehicj'e-m-question only, In any amount deposited by the appeJlant-Insurance Company has been witiidrawn by the cbimants, itwilJ be open for the appeJhntInsuranceCompanytorecover the same from the owner of vehicle. However, if the amount, so deposited, has not been withd2rawn so far, the Insurance Company shalJ be albwed to withdraw the same. Rest of the conditions and findings of the impugned award are herBby confirmed< It is hereby clarified that the ctajmants are free to execute the award against the owner of the vehicle-in-question. '9. No order as to costs. 10. Certifjed copy as per rules, Roghan/" Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge '"r^