(A THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR -&•! MISC.APFEAL N0.^ OF 2006 APPELLANT Single Bench 'Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, Through-The Branch Manger ShivMohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha,Road, Raipur C.G. (Son- Applicant no.3j RESPONDENTS , ^..••-^ y^r ..• ^- VERSUS Smt. Surji Bai Verma w/o Late Anand Ram, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Kusumi, Near house of Ragi, Palari, Tah. Baludabazar, Distt. Raipur C.G. Narendra Dhimar @ Bablu S/o Awadh Ram. Dhimar, aged about 35 years (Driver- Non applicant no.l) 3. .Nohar Dhritlahre S/o ,..'" '' Manbodhi Dhritlahre, aged about 40 years Both are resident of villagg . Kusumi, Near House of Ragi, Tah. Balaudabazar, Distt. Raipur C.G. (Owner- Non applicant no.2) W'1' MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT.1988 n LE HIGH COURT Oy CHHArTIBCEARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C»N0, 326 OF 2006 APPBLLANT RBSPONDBNT8 Bajaj AUiaaz General lusui-aiice Company Versas Sm.t Surji Bai Verma aad otliers. APP&AL UNDER SECnOR 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICI.BS ACT.1988 Slade Beacli: Hoa'ble Slul G. BUaItaluddIa. J. Presettt: Shri Rakesh Paadey, couasel f<w the appeUant None for thc respoadents fluitighserved. ORAL ORDER : TPassed oa t2*b day 0( September, SKllt) Ust is being revised. No ouc is preeent ou bebalf of fhe respondents and fherefore, they have beea proc'eeded esx-parte. In view offhe above, wifh fh.e consent oflearnKl counsel for ttie appeUaat, the matter is heard finally. 2. This appeal has been filed by &e appeUant -' Bajaj AUianz General Insuraace Comf >uy against ftic iiapugued award dated 26-06-2006 passed by Chief Motor Accjdent Claitns Tribunal, Ralpur (for short 'the Clauas Tribuiial') iii Claini Case No. 58/2005 fastening fhe UabJUIy to jpay fhe compensatiou to fhe claimauts on fhe appeUant/Insui'ance Coinpany Joinfly aad severaUy aloug wifh fhe owner aud driver of the offeuding vehJcle Tractor-ttolley bearing registration No. C.G. 04-D/6944 and troBey bcariug regtetration No. C.a. 04/6945. 3. Brief facts of fhe case accordiag to the version of fhc claiiaaat are fhat non-applicant No. 1 (Narendra Dhimar) is the driver, uou-applicaut No. 2 (Nohar Dhltalhrej is fhe registered owner and nbn-applicaut No. 3 is insurer of fhe offeudiag vehk;le Ti-actor-troney. Oa 08-11-2004 at 9.00 P.M. fhc dece^ed Aaand Ram Verma was traveUng in the tractQr bearing registratiou No. C.G. 04-D/6944, froin Balouda Bazai' to Village Kusini. The said tractor-trolley aasjlrivea by uon- applicaut No.l ia a r^h and aegligent maiiner, (MI acaxiat of which fhe drlver lost contrcil over it aud aa a result, deceased Aaaud Ram Verma fell down aud sustaiaed grtevous iajuries. He was takeu to Ramkrishna Hospltal, Paclipedi Naka, Rayur for treatment, wheiTe he died on 12-11-2004. Report of the iucUent was lodged at Policc Statioa, Palari and offeuces were registered under SecUon 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and a charge-sheet was fOed before the Judicial Magistrate, Fust Class, Balouda Bazai'. At the tuae of accMent, age of the deceased was 59 yeai-s and he was earning Ra. 4000/- by doing E^riculturat works. 4. The claimant belng legal heir of fhe d«;easedhas filed a petition bcfore the Glalms Tribunal uuder Section 166 rf tfae Motor Veliicles Act, 1988 (for short tbc Act1) claimiug cojapensatiou ofRs.7,25,000/- for the death ofthe deceased. 5. The contention ofthe lcarued counsel for the appellaat 1s that at fhe time of accident, deceased Auaud Rani Verma was sittuig on the .mud-guard of fhe whcel of the Tiactor on his owa wjll iii contravention of fhe condlttoas of insuraince policy aud fherefone, fhe appellaat/Insuran.ee Conipany is aot liable to pay auy corapeusation to the clauitaut aud fhe learned Claims Trlbunal has couimitted a maulfest error oflaw ia festening the liabllily upon the appellant/Insuraace Couipauy, 6. Froin fhe m.aterial available on I'econd especialty" fhe statement of Parmeshwar Verma (AW-2), wfao is soa- of fhe decessed Auaud Ram aad PIR Ex. P-1 todged toy him iuunedLiately afier fh.e accMent and it is ctear fhat at the tiuK: of accMent, the deceased Aaaud Rain was sitting in ttae Traictor aad ou accoiint of lash and uegl^eut driviag of fhe drwer of ths traGtor (Nareudra), tlie deceased had faUea down aad lecewed grievous iujuries resiiltyig iu lus death. There u no slttmg capacily in the Tractor fof aay person except the drlvcr aad as such theiie is clear breach of conditioii of iusiuance policy and consequenfly, fhe appeUant/Insui'ance Couipaiiy couM not have been Ixeld liable for paynieut ofcom.pensatiau to the clalmant. 7. In the jpesiilt, fhe appeal fBed by the appel]aut/Insurau<K Compauy is allowed aud the impugned award iu ao far aa it relates to fasteuiug of UabUity to pay cojnpeBsatfoit to tfae claimauts upon tfae appeHaut is set aeMe aud tihfi appellaat/lasui-ance Coinpany is exonerated fboia its UablUty to satisty the unpugaed award. However, it wiB be opeu to the clakuant to recover the aiaoiint of coiapensatioa &oin the owuer and driver ofthe offendlug vehicle i.e. tractor-trolley. 8. The ainouut ifany, deposited by the appeltaut/lusiu'aace Conipany shall be refunded to it. In case fhe ainouut has ah'eady beeji disbursed, then ttic appeBaat shaH be entitled to recover fhe same froui the owner of the offeadiug veUcle fTiactor-TroUey). There shaU be no order as.to coste. Judge KVT