./•\--o-v.--u-^'^-^'-v.-u-u"v-o~^"^-^-C'<^/^' 11 OM¥3 IN THB HIGH COURT OF C MisceUaneous appe CM-A^) AK^ELLANTS. ISGARH ATBILASPUR 0^7.^/2008. ^ ^ Jairam Dewangan Son of shri Mukund Ram Dewangan, aged about 65 years, residenceof Village Sarkhon Tahsil Janjgeer & Dist. Janjgeer Champa (C.G.) (Owner of the C.G.ll A. 7128 Tractor & C.G.l 1 A. 7129 TroUey) Manoj Bareth Son of Shri Mattnu Ram Bareth aged about 23 years, residence of Village Sarkhon Tahsil Janjgeer & Dist. Janjgeer Champa (C.G.) (Driever of the C.G.ll A. 7128 Tractor & C.G.11 A. 7129 Trolleyl VBRSUS RESPONDENTS. (Claimants) ^•^ ......^^ ..••"'^ •"^.^' ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^^ ^ :x-\h Smt. Sharda Bai Wd/o Late SewakRam Yadav aged about 28 years. Kumari Pooja D/o Late Sewak Ram Yadav aged about 8th years. Master Ravi S/o Late Sewak Ram Yadav aged about 6 years, respondent No.l fo 3 all resident of Chandniyapara, Behind Hotel Kalika, Tahsil Janjgeer Dist. Jangeer (Champa) (C.G.) /. The oriental Insurance f^ Company Through Branch manager Office, Station Road Near Trimurti cinema (Takeej) Champa, Dist. Korba(C.G.) ^' MISCELLAN^OUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VBHICLE ACT 1988. :ll;^.-ilr' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (Q No. 512 of2008 (' ^- Appellants Jairam Dewangan & another Versus Respondents Smt. Sharda Bai & others MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri R. S. Patel, Advocates for the appellants. None for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri A. K. Athley, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 2nd day of February, 2011 ) Per I. M, Quddusi J. The instant appeal, filed by the appellants (owner and driver of the vehicle) arises from the award dated 4th January, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir Champa in Claim Case No. 55/2007, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,77,000/- and fixing liability to make payment of compensation upon the owner & driver of the vehicle, jointly and severally. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that dpceased Sevakram, aged about 32 years, was working as agricultural labour and was earning about Rs. 5000/- per month. On 17.6.2007 at about 1.00 a.m. in the night said Sevakram, in the capacity of agricultural labour, was going on the tractor - trolley, bearing registration No. C.G. 11 A 7128 and 7129, respectively, in order to sprinkle manure in the field. The vehicle was owned by the appellant No.l and was being driven by the appellant No.2. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trolley, Sevakram fell dov/n from the trolley, his head r"' '""^ fA 8. came under the rear wheel of the trolley and crushed, resulting in his^ death. The respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants, being widow, daughter and son, respectively, of deceased Sevakram field a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation ofRs. 31,00,000/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record held that the vehicle in question was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, as a result ofwhich, Sevakram died and therefore awarded a sum of Rs. 3,77,000/- as compensation to the claimants. We have perused the conditions of the policy as well as the insurance certificate. The insurance policy was a 'Kisan Package Policy' and the risk of only driver was covered under the same. It is alleged that the deceased was a labour, deputed on the tractor-trolley. When the tractor-trolley was in a moving position the deceased was coming from the engine side of the tractor towards trolley, meaning thereby he was the occupant of the tractor and was not a third party. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the findings given by the Claims Tribunal are to its bestjudgment and are not liable to be disturbed. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. In yiew of the above discussion it is not a fit case to interfere with the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur