/^. 1^ c^' Jj -/1- INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR MAtCt £-43^<./09-y- ~Tn FS Han i< U^^j Ui'll APPELLANT NON APPLICANT ) t",^"- w.^ ^^. ?&^-<w^ \_^.^ VERSUS National Insurance Co. Ltd. Preydarshani Nagar, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) .,2M-\ RESPONDENTS APPLICANTS ^ 1.. Smt. Lata Kashyap age 24 Yrs Wd/o Satanand Kashyap Ku. Seema Age 4 Years D/o Satanand Kashyap 3. Ku. Bindu Age 1 Years D/o Satanand Kashyap 4. Mahatra age 52 years S/o Late Goverdhan Kashyap 5. Kali Bai aged 49 years W/o Mahetar Kashyap Respondent No. 2 to 3 Through Guardian Mother Latabai AU R/o. Gram-Dharampura Thana & Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. Harish Kumar age 28 Yrs '^' S/o Sushil Kumar Sahu Motor Cycle Driver Hero Honda CD Delux No. CG10ED 7673 .2.. B 1 !;;< ."@ N / .(^ s ..2. z/' Panvatibai aged 24 yrs W/o Ragwendra Sharma Vehicle Owner Hero Honda CD Delux No. CG10ED 7673 Bofh R/o ofDharmapura Thana- Tahsil Mungeli Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFMOTOR VEHICLE ACT ^^. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGAKH. BIUUBPUR DB: HON'BLE I. M. QUDDU8I & HOH'BLE G. aaiNHAJUDDIH, JJ APPELLANT: RBSPONDBNTS! MjBi.tCI No. 247/2010 National Insuraace Co. Ltd. Vs. Sint. Lata Kashyap & ofhers MISC. APPEAL UNDBRSBCTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE8 ACT,tSSS APPEARANCE: Mr. Shrilcumar Agranral, Sr, Advocate with Mr. Anand Kiunar Gupta, coiuisel for the appetlant. Mr. K. A. Ansari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vipia Siagfa, coimsel for respondent no.6. Per I.M. QUDDUS!. J, ORAL ORDBR (26.09.2011) 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Coxapaay agaiast the impugned order dated 24.09.2009 passed by the Ist Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Distt. Bflas-Dur tC.G) in Glaim Case No.54/2008. S. The claunaiits/respondents 1 to 5 being dependents/Jegal representatives of fhe deceased Satanaiid Kashyap have filed claim petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for fhe award of a total compensation of Rs.27,25,000/- on various heads aBegmg that ou 08.06.2008, deceased alongwifh his Mends Harish Kuiaar (respondent no.6 herein) and Bh^wat Prasad Sahu were going to Amarkantaka fi-oin Dharanipura by Motorcycle bearing Regn. No.C.G.10-ED/7673. Cta the way, just after crossiag 5 Kms., finm Achanakinar, fhe said ^ '-.^•-pfSi' .r inotorcycle wbich was beiag driven by respondent no.6 in rash and negUgent niaruier became uncontroUed and struck agamst a tree situated on the road side, as a result ofwtuch, piUion nder Sataiiaad Kasliyap susteined grievQus head iajury and when he was brought to the Hospital Ssxasi fhe place ofincident, he died on the wav. At fhe tune ofaccident the deceased was aged about 26 years; he was runTiine a Kiraaa and Geiieral store in village Dharanipura and was eamiag Rs.8000/- per inonfh. 3. Leamed Clauns Tribunal heM that Motoreycle beariag Regn.No.C.G.10-ED/7673 inet with accident due to rash and negUgent driviug of respondent no.6, as a result of which, Satanand Kashyap died; fherc was no breach of conditions of the iasurance policy by respondents 6 & 7; the claimaats are entiUed to reeeive a total coinpensation ofRs.6,01,000/- wifh interest @ 6% per annuin fi'oin the non-appUcauts jointly aud severatly. 4. We have hcard learued counsel for the parties and Iiave also gone through tb.e records offhe Tribunal. S. ^- Leamed counsel for the appellant has raised the grouud that fhere were two piUion ridcrs, fherefore, the Insurance Coinpaay is not liable to pay coiupensation on fhe deafh of oae pillion rider. We are of fhe opinion that tbis ground caonot be allowed to stand in view of fhe decisipn of the Supreaie Court in Nation.al Insurem.ee Cowipang Irtd. -Vs- Anjema Shyetm. cind others, (2007) 7 SCC 445, ia whlch Hon'ble the Apcx Court has iu sum. and substao.ee held vide paras 20 & 21 fhat iaspite of the relevant provMions of fhe statute, iasurauce stiU reinauis a contract between the owner and the insurer aad the 6. parties are goverued by the tenns of fheir conteact. The insured is covered only to fhe extent of the passengers pennitted to be iasured or directed to be insured by the statute aad actuaUy covered by fhe contract The InsiM'Baee Coaipany can be made liable only in respect offhe nuiaberofpassengers for whoin iasuraace can be taken under the Aet aad for whoin insiu-aace has been taken as a fa.et and not iu respect of fhe other passengers involved iu the accident in a case of overloadiug. Further in para 22 it has been held as foUGiws: "22. Then arises the question, how to detemiine the coinpensation payable or how to quantify ttie conipcnsatiou since fliere is no nieaEts of ascertamiag who out of the (werloaded Basscngers constitute the passengers covered by the Insui-ance PoUey as pennitted to be carried by the permit itself. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of fhe Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either iajured or dead ia aa accidenfc It serves a social piirpose. Keeping fhat in rnind we thiak that fhe practical aad proper course would be to hold fhat the InsuranGe Company, iu such a case, would be bound to cover the h^her of the various awards aud will be conipelled to deposit the higher offhe amounts of the coiapensation awarded to the extent of fhe number of passengers covered by the iasurance poUcy." Further in Cucular No.IRDA/NL/CIR/ P&U/ 073/11/2009 dt. 16.11.2009 issued bv IRDA it is eoafirmed fhat inMired's liability ia respect of occupant carried iai a Pnvate Car aud PiUion Rider carried on two-wheelers is covered tmder the Standard Motor Package Policy, ^\ 7. In view of the above discussion, the Insuraace Coinpaay is liable to pay the coinpensation to the claimants for the deafh of the piUion rider. No other ground has been raiscd before this Coiu-t. Therefore, ttus appeal is dismissed. No utder as to cost(s). ,' ~ Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao