IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR {CHHATTISGARH) jlj§te M.A. fC) No. °^30 Of 2007. -^ APPELLANT ^ON-APPLICANT N0.1 ^, ?he United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Mendekar Complex, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^. ^•^(^. ^y^^-"" ^ ^""^^ ^- ^•^..AWl'':^^?^ ..^y ' '.'y^'''" .r.^-- yA:K :-1. Ghanshyam Prasad Gupta, son of - Shri Chhotelal Gupta, aged about 40 years, Occupation Agriculture, resident ofVillage Malga, Post Chunghadi, Thana Pratappur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh), CLAIMANT 2. Laxminarayan Gupta, son of Jugal Kishore Gupta, Occupation Vehicle Owner, resident of Village Post Basantpur, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, Districi Sarguja (Chhattisgarh), 3. Suraj Kumar Gupta, son ofJanardan l7 Prasad Gupta, Occupation Vehicle Driver, resident of Village w^---—..' © Pashupatipur, Thana Basantpur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh). NON-APPLICANT N0. 2 AND 3 APPEAL UNDER SECTION173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. /'.£' ff" I'rf ...-^ I %m^% 1 l^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.CNo. 930 of 2007 APPELLANT The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Ghanshyam Prasad Gupta & others (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICt.ES ACT^ (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the appeliant. Shri CJK Rao, Advocate for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No. 2 & 3 though served. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 22.07.2011) 1. This is insures' appeal against award dated 1 0.04.2007 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 33/07. 2. As against Rs. 34,69,0007- claimed by respondent No.1/ claimant by filjng application before the Tribunal under Sectjon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.04.2004, the Tribunal awardpd total sum of Rs. 80.000/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actuai payment agalnst the respondent No. 2 & 3 exonerating the appellant/insurance company from its liability to pay compensation with a direction first to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and then to recover jt from the respondent No. 2 & 3. 3. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsej appearing for the ^ appellanVinsurance company submits that the Tribuna! arrived .-•/ :/ ^ '"^.r at definite finding that the respondent/claimant was sjtting in the offending vehicle t.e. TATA-DI-207 bearing registration No CG-15-A-2227 i.e. goods carriage vehicle, as a gratuitous passenger even then directed the appedant to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and then to recover it from the owner ofvehicle which is not sustainable in !aw. 4. On the other hand, Shri CJK Rao, learned counsei appearing for the respondent No.l/claimant supported the award and would submit that looking to the benevotent provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in directing the appellant to first pay the amount of compensation and then to recover it from the'owner and driver of the vehicle. 5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused record and award impugned. 6. Indisputably, the respondent No.l/daimant was sitting in the goods carriage vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. There is no requirement of the policy under Section 147 of MV Act to cpver risk of gratuitous passenger sitting in the goods vehicle. A bare perusal of the policy would reveal, the appeljant/insurance company had not undertaken any such risk by entering into special contract with the owner and by charging extra premium therefor, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation in the instant case and direction of the Tribunal to the appeljant/insurance comparty to first pay the amount of comp^Tsatfon and then to recoMer the same ^ '^} from the owner and driver of offending vehide is not sustainable in law. 7. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, appeal is allowed in part. Direction given to the appellant/insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and then to recover from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle is set aside. The award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain ihtact. 8. The respondent No. 1 is free to execute.the award against the owner and driver of offending vehicle. Appellant/insurance company is also free to recover the amount already deposited by it from the owner of the vehicle. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu