^••^ fc.s IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) ,n MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL fC) N0. ^T^) OF 2009 APPELLANTS : VYCOO^, ,<l\\..y .^"y^ . ^':s^ A. 2. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : ^l. ^ ^-/IPPLlCd/lTS ^ Hor>-(^f>f1'ic<^v^ (- {\ ^3. Ramlal son of Girdharilal Sahu, aged about 72 years, Occupation Vehicle Swaraj Tractor No. C.G. 05/0812 and Trolley No. C.G. 05/0813 (Registered Owner) Kumbhkaran son of Dhansingh Sahu, aged about 35 years, Occupation Vehicle Swaraj Tractor No. C.G. 05/0812 and Trolley No. C.G. 05/0813 (Driver) Both are Resident of Village Kharenga, Post Kharainga, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) Smt. Uma Dhruv widow of Shankar Lal Dhruv, aged about 20 years, R/o Village and Post Kharenga, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) Smt. Shiv Bai widow of Asharam Dhruv, aged about 55 years, R/o Village Post Kharenga, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through: the Branch Manager, Second Floor, R.D.A. Building Bajrang Market, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) (^ Claimed before Tribunal Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal Claimed in this Memo of Appeal Rs. 12,00,000/^ Rs. 2,26,200/- Rs. 2,15,200/- ^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THEJ4QTQR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 fr ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fQNo. 748 of2009 APPELLANTS R.amlal <fe another VERSU8 RESPONDENTS : Smt. Uma Dhmv & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VE.HICI.ES ACT SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal ^esent : Shri PP Sahu, Advocate for the appellants. Shri SN Chandra, Advocate for respondentNo. 1 & 2. Shri AK Athaley, Advocate for respondentNo. 3. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 31.03.2011) 1. With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This is owner's appeal against the award dated 20.02.2009, passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal'1) in claim case No. 38/08, whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 2, 15,200/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants and as against the appellants exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case according to the appellants are that : on 24.05.2008, Shankar Lal Dhmv (since deceased) was traveling in the Tractor bearing registration No. CG-05-0812 and its Trolley bearing registration No. CG-05-0813, the said Tractor ^-.. \ ^ '% 'A 1%. ^s^^ tiimed turtle, as a resiilt of which he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 4. As against Rs. 12,00,0007- claimed by unfortunate widow and mother of deceased, the Tribunal, awarded total sum of Rs. 2,15,200/- as compensation in favour ofthe claimants along with interest @ 8 percent per annum from the date of application till its payment. 5. Shri PP Sahu, leamed counsel appearing tbr the appellants would submit : the tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation despite the fact that vehicle was insured. 6. On the other hand, Shri AK Athaley, learned counsel appearini for the respondent No. 3/insurance company supported the award and would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants which deserves to b©upheld, 7. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the order impugned and records oftribunal. 8. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence led, material placed and submissions made, held : accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending Tractor, awarded a sum ofRs. 2,15,200/- as compensation against the appellants i.e. driver & owner of Tractor in question, exonerated the insurance ^"^ j r company on the ground deceased was sitting in the Tractor/Trolley as gratiiitous passenger. 9. The fact that deceased was working as a Labour in the Mandi, Dhamtari, and was sitting in the Tractor/Trolley in question as a gratuitous passenger at the time of accident is not in dispiite. It is well settled, the insurance company is not statiitory liable to cover the risk of a person sitting in the Tractor/Trolley as a gratuitous passenger. It is not a case ofthe appellants that by taking extra premium the insurance company had undertaken such risk. 10. In view of above, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the above ground, 11. No other points have been raised by the appellants counsel. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal being devoid of siibstance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. NQ order a)h asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu