IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPU Ps C.R.NO. '31 OF 20( lligSe REVISION PETmONUNDER_SECTION 115 OFTHE C.P.C..1908. t PETITIONER (NON- APPLICANT N0.2) RESPONDENTS rAPPLICANT) :1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Its: Branch Manager, Bmch-Office, Mendhekar Complex, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Ramavtar, S/O-Late Pannalal Suryvanshi, aged-53 years, Caste-Suryvanshi, ^.- R/0-Omnagar, Jarhabhatha, Tah.Ss Distt.-Bilaspur (CG). (NON-APPLICANT MO.1) >?':^4 . ff-^'--''-' ^!5:^ ^^ ^t^^^:'^ .^^ — <.) •A^ A tjajeshwar, S/0-Rainavtar Suryvanshi, aged-28 years, /' R/O-Jai Pawansut cycle stores, Subhash Chandra Bose Complex, Jarhabhata, Tah.& Distt.-BUaspur (CG) %tf- t ^T^... ^y ^ NIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR Sm<3J!e_BeQchLHon'bSe Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra CivilRevisiQn No.39Qf_20Q8 PETITtONER {Non-ApDiscant No.2) gESeONDEMTS rAPPLICANT) Versus United India tnsyrance Company Umited Ramavtar and ancrther. REVISION PETITSON UNOER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF GIVIL PROCEDURE Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appticant. None for She respondents. ORAL ORDER (01.07.2010) Heard. (2) The instant revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. has been preferred by the tnsurance Company chaltenging the (iabiSity of payment of compensation fastened upon tt by the claims Tribunat. (3) The claimant preferred the ctaim petjtion to claim compensation on account of injuries suffered by him white driving Hero Honda Sptendermotorcycle bearing No. C.G.10/BA 3531. The vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 Jaleshwar. (4) The claims Tribunat has awardsd compensation of Rs.9,000/- to be pald by the (nsurance Company. (5) Learned counsel for the appticant has submttted that since the jnsurance cover issued in favour of the insured covered the risk of %he vehicle owner only, therefore the Insurance Company is not liable because the claimant was not the owner but was himself driving the motorcycle at the time of accident and that his risk was not covered. ^-.: -^- (6) tn the insurance policy it is mentioned that the owner of the vehicte is covered up to Rs.1,00,000/- in case of pereonal accident. (7) In the matter of Ortental Insurance Company Limiteel Vs. Sucitsakaran K.V. ancf Offters reported in (2008) 7 SCC 428 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus in para 25 ofthe report :- "25. The faw which emerges from ffie said decf^Qns, fs: (i) the ffability ofthe msurance CQmpany m a case ofthis nature is not extended to a pillfon-FKler ofthe motor vehicle untess the requisite amount of prermum Is pasd for covering his/her risk; (w) ffte tegaf obffgation ansmg uncter Section 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicfe or the peWon-nder, (iii) the piffion-nder in a two-wheelerwas not to be treaded as a third party wfien the accident hss taken pface owing to rash and negffgent riding of the scooter and not on the part of the cfriver of another vehscle." <8) Though the above case was deating with the liabiltty of the Insurance Company when the ctaim has been preferred on account of death of a pillion rider however the Hon'ble Supreme Court has he(d that the pitSion rider in a two-wheeter was ncrt to be treated as a third party when the accldent has taken place owing to rash and negligent drivtng of the scooter and not on the part of the driver of ancrther vehicie. (n the present case also it has been stated that one unidentffied vehicte dashed against the motorcycle however the owner, driver and (nsurance Company of other vehide has been arrayed as party In the claim petftlon. Thus the claim pet'rtiori has been preferred against the insurance Company of the vehicte which the driver was himself driving. Taking guidance from the judgment in the matter of .</Y ^ -'2?- Oriental fnsui^nce Company Limited Vs. Sudhalearan K.V. ancf Gffters (supra) this Court is of the consldereci opinton that a person driving a motorcyde who was not the owner of the motorcycle cannot be treated as third party vis-6-vis insurance poticy and the tnsurance Company ot the same two wheeler whteh he was driving. He may be a third party with respect to the other vehtete which has dashed against the motorcycie but in the present case the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the other vehicte has been joined. (9) In view of the above, the instant revision preferred by the insurance Company is allowed. It is held that the tnsurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award. The award against the Insurance Company is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge