IN THE HIGHycOURT OF JUDICATURJB AT BmASPUR M.A.(C)NO ^U /2011 OivisionBendl PELLANT ^y i.\"1;/'"^' ^'rt ^.^y^^ ^ >^°. '^ ^^^ y -ff' RESPONDENTS PLICANTS ^^^^1^s -^r^ NONAPPLIGANTS4 -J / 'he New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ' Through : Divisional Manager Divisiorial Office- No.l The New IndiaAssurance Co. Ltd. Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Deendayal Aged 25 years S/o Samelal Yadav GhhabiAged 23 year; S/6 SamelalYadav Rayi Aged 21 years S/o Samelal Yadav AlLR/o Village- Lavan Distt. Raipur (C.G.) .' , Gopal Shah Aged 40 years S/ o Narayan Shah (Driver Tra.ctor) Godavari Power and Ispat Ltd. Siltara, P.S. Dharsiwa, Tah. Raipur, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) Siya Vallafah Gliowdhari , S/o Laxarai Chowdhari Godavan Power and Ispat Ltd. R/ o Siltara P. S. Dharsiwa, Distt. Raipur Owner 6f tractor BR 10/E/7382 SbabhooYaday „ ^t^ft .. S/o Chhedarri Yadav R/o Kasdol, Tah. BalodaBazar, Distt.Raipur(C.G.) Purshottam Yadav S/o Shatnbhoo R/oVillage- Lavan, 7 Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Raaa SanehiYadav ff ^ S/o Shambhoo Yadav ? $% R/QiViIlage- Layan^ . • •i^ w^^^ Distf. Raipur (C.G.) ; ..2,.^.. \_i^.^^S§^^ 5. 6. 1. ^ •s;1'- (o -.2.. Sarswati Yadav D/o Shambhoo Yadav R/o Village- Lavan Distt. Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL AGAINST AWARD PASSED BY VII ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T RAIPUR IN CT 68/07 ON 10.~11.2010 UNDER SECTION 173 MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. ku--- APPEAL VALUED AT Rs. 3,91,000/- C.F. PaidRs. 15/>-'^ i'ws^s>^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. l.nfl.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ. Appellant Respondents M.A.rdNo.466/2011 Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Raipur Deendayal and others Present: Mr. AK Gupta, counsel for the appellant, None for the respondents, though served. ORDER (Orall (24th November, 2011) Perl.M.Quddusi.J; 1. List is being revised. The case was called out twice, however, no one is present on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, we proceed ex-parte against the respondents. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/insurance company against the award dated 10.11.2010 passed by 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (in short "Tribunal") in Claim Case No.68/07, insofar as it relates to fastening of liability upon the appellant/insurance company, jointly and severally, along with driver and owner of the vehicle. 3. Brief facts of the case, as per averments made in the claim petition, are that on 26.12.2006 at 1.30 in the night, respondent No.4 was driving the vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing registration No. B.R. 10- E/7382 in a rash and negligen,t manner near Godawari Power & tspat Ltd., P.S. - Dharseenwa,-as a result ofwhich, Rambai, who was sitting on the mudguard of the said tractor, fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. She was taken to hospital for treatment, however, the doctors declared her brought dead. At the time of acddent, deceased Rambai was 36 years old and was earning Rs.3000/- per month. Therefore, the claimants/dependents, ^ 2 ?r of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") for a total compensation of Rs.4,41,000/- before the Tribunal against the death of Rambai, under various heads. 4. However, learned Tribunal, after hearing counsel for the parties and after close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.3,91,000/- in favour of the claimants, fastening the liability upon the appellant/insurance company, jointly and severally, along with driver and owner of the vehicle. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. 6. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was an agriculture tractor and there was no sitting capacity in the tractor, except one seat for the driver. Therefore, the deceased was traveling unauthorizedly in the tractor by sitting on its mudguard and hence, there was clear breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such, the appellant/insurance company could not have been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned award, so far as it relates to fastening of liability upon the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants. The appellant/insurance company is exonerated of its liability. However, it will be open for the claimants to realize the amount of compensation from the owner and driver of the vehicle, jointly and severally, as they are held liable to pay compensation. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- ., G.TyliAa^ddin ]udge f^