DivisionBenefc IN THE HIGH GOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: C.G. M.A.No. 7Y Of 2005 bb ^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173, MOTOR VEHICLES AGT, 1988 ADDjeUante (Non applicants 3) : J/) United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Krishna Complex, Katchury Chouk Raipur(C. G.) ResDondents: Ys ^T Jumman S/o Gul Khan aged 32years (Driver), R/oVillage Devri, Post Office Pahanda, Tahsil & Thana Berla, District Durg(C.G.) fNon-aDpIicant 1) >-. ^v ^ Gul Khan S/o Bisarat Khan, aged 70 years, R/o Village Devri Post Office Pahanda, Tahsil & Thana Berla, District Durg (C.G.) (Non-apDlicant 2) ^-3) Janak S/o Manglu Dhmv, aged 40 years, Bai W/o Janak aged 35 years Both R/o Village Anandgaon Tahsil & Thana Berla DistrictDurg(C.G) rADDlidants/Claimants) •y- ^ Claim in appeal for setting aside/modified the award, , ^. valuedatRs.1,^2,000/- Court Fee affixed at Rs. 15/- (Note: 'Repeipt' regarding deposition of Rs.257000/- is being filed herewith) Being aggrieved by award dated 30.8.2005, passed by Upper Motor Accidenf Claims Tribunal, ^f' Bemetara , Durg in Claim Case No. 16/2005, the appellant prefers this appeal on the following facts andgrounds:- ^ -^ "~z - —--• •?—.——- XI-HC-22 371^T^r f^'lJcb S^^ ^ 5t)^w ^f^a «' -r -:^-<' ^ >-.. •jiSi^^ ~^:^Myy + ^ET ^|41d<M, ^itOT?, fa^l^y ^Ilif9T "^N^ ^.AM^.:..^^/^ ^ITR^ ^Hlcb I^^T' 3TT^T'^TT^R ^f^T DA ? HON'BLESHRILALCHAKDBHADOO.J. AND HON'BLE SHRI VIJAY KItMAR SHRIVASTAVA. J. 22-12-2005 Mr, Saajay S, Agrav^al, counsel for fhe appellaat. Heard on adinissiord» QRAL 1, By this appeal, fhe guestioned fhe legaUty, propri^ly dated 30-8-2005 passed by Beinetai-a, Durg in Clami Tribunal/ while aUowing fhe claijrL 4 hereiti, passed aa aWard ofRs) 2. respondent N6.2Aereia was fhe No.CG 07 D 2596 aad attached chl^Fd^1r11RTR^ff "^ fe^T ~<M^}< ^T^ri^R^TT^r ORDER pppellaat/Insuraace Compaiiy has »• ' - aad correcttiess of the award R|Iotor Accidents Claiais Tribunal, No, 16/05, whereby learaed petition of respondents No.3 aiid^ 11,62,000/ - m tibtetr favonr; Cb:se ;laitn The brief facts leaditig to filmg of this appeal are fliat, |registered Qwner ofTractor bearyig |TroUey bearmg No.CG 07 D 2597. pT^l^f^^ s^T— XI-HC-22 ^n^T^r „ 'f^Twgn^T A' 5h^icr> ^rf^T -r -^.." ^, !+ ^3^c[ ^S^Krl^ ?P?, '^TltWT?, 'f^TRTy ^ an^r "q^? HW^ST <5h^l<^ —2-. "^^T' "TFI, 200 W^T'^TT^R ^rf^T lllll'it^ BS81 The said Tractor aad Trolley wei] cbl<4fd41yi 'RT^ff "^ ft^ Tf^T( '^T'srf^R^^T e insured by fhe appeUarit hereiB. on 24-1-2004 andthat msuraa<}:ewas valid upto 23-1-2005. On 12-1-2005, respondent No, 1, Jui|amaii was drivrag tlie said Tractor aad Trolley, On fhat day, respo4dent Np. 1, JumLEciaDi, whUe driving the Tractor ia a rash aiid negU^ent niaaner, caused the accident, whereby Ramcharaa, who was s|tttuig ia fhe TroUey at tlie relevafit tmie feU down and he was cnisljied under fbe Tyre of the Tractor, as a result of which, he died |spontaiieously. -The Biatter was reported to PoUce Station, B^ria, where Crmie No.6/05 was registered under Section 304 A<|)ffhe Indiaa Penal Code. A clabn petition was filed before tlie Tribitinal for awardiag coiiipensation to ftie tmie of Rs. 15,25,000/ -. Ho^ever, learaed Tribunal passed ttie award of Rs.l,62,OOQ/-. This ^vard has been qiiestioned by fhe appeUaat/ Insuran.ee Corapany o[a fhe ground that, at the relevaiit time, Ramcharao. was sitting <\ beyond fhe sitting capacity of fh< ,^. Coinpany cao.not be held Uable, ^n fhe Mudguard 6f fhe Ti-actor ^ Tractor, therefore,'fhe Jnsurance aiid further fhat, wifhout fraiuiag >n aa issue that the Tractor in quesjtion was beidg used for other tliaa ['^ifei T XI-HC-22 3:n^r'^T f^ti^ ^Tf^T 5t)^i<=h ^Ra ^' r . ^. + -^^^Tizn^n, 0Ti1^i<o/fa<rii^^^^^ 3ff^T xpra? ^IHCII 5b^l<sh """"~r:^""^"""'*"""^[ 200 'I^^ST' the agricultural purpose/the otlier ground, challerigiag fhe that, iastead of consideriag the multipUer of 16 has wrongly b^< the deceased. As far as fhe se|c appUcation ofinultipUer of 16 is| fhe Jnsuraace Conipaiiy and obtaitied by the Insuraace Trilbunal at^ard has passed fhe award, The ia question, has been taken ^ige of fh.e parents of ftie deceased, |en appUed Gonsideriiig fbie age of ?ond ground regardiag fhe wrong lcpncei'nLed, since it is an appeal of adiaittedly no permission was Co|mpany froin tiie Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehiclejs fhat 'groiuid, fhereforc, fhe raise this ground ia fhis appeal| issue was not frained to the effel ttinfe for ofher fhan fhe agriculturalj accident, Ramcharaa was sittm|j beyond the sittmg capacity of issue was not framed, but from appears fhat, fh.e evidence on| parties aad fhe rnsuraace ISKKSIs:' < chi^F<n^li ^H<^T "^ f^T^ Tfe$lT/ i7 'STi^FT 3T1^T Act, 1988 to contest tlie claiin on Insi^raDLce Conipaay is riot entitled to As far as fhe other ground that, st fhat the Tractor was beiag used purpose and at flie time of the on fhe Mudguard of fhe Tractor jthe Tractor, it is true that, such Iperusal ofpara 13 offhe award, it fhis aspect was adduced by fhe Co4ipany was aware about fhe said [^mI^T XI-HC-22 -3^'^TFTRT^* ^^41^- ^^ ^:- - -yn^r'^T T<rii<=h 'sni^r 5t>^icft ^fid ^: ..^— ^^ f-^.,... 3TTt?T 'q^? ^IH^II 9b*<S<sb ..............^ •^^T' + 3^T^T ^TT^R '^cT defence taken by fhe Compaiiy ar the Tribunal for frammg the issiy on tiiat aad as fhe Insui-aace Coinpany contested fhe claim petifion, haviag knowledge about tlie chNid^'1 'RFR^ff ^ 'ft^t 'd^^R ^3Tp<R3TT^T .d no objection was taised before said defence aad fuU oppo3| appellant/Insuraiice Coinpaay, fh< been caused to fhe Insuraace Coiii of tiie issue on tiie point Tlie tunity was granted to fhe ^refore, no serious prejudiee has tpaay on account of non-fram.iag 1-efore, the Insuraiice Coinpany caanot be allowed to raise fhis g^ound for the first tmie fh.at fhe issue was not fraraed. As far as RamLcharaa was sittmg on fh.e Mu4guard ofthe Tractor beypnd fhe fhe question fhat fhe deceased sittiag capacily of fhe Tracfor i^ cousidermg the evidence adducedj witoaiess i.e. Wifaess No.2, Narayanj, has,recorded a fuidiag in para ( " . . • ^- .,. - I " • • • 13 of tlie award tiiat, Raincharaa ^vas sittmg ia the Trolley nof on I fhe Mudguard of fhe Tractor aad fhe Merg Intimation aad F.LR. aa4 concemed, leanied Tribunal, by fhe claimaiits aud the eye- fhe same fact was nientioned ia TroUey on account ofjumpiag offh^ TroUey. Therefore/ there is no subsfaiice in fhis argument, A^ Ramcharaa feU down frtfia the far as fhe question that the ['^ ^fo^ "w" XI-HC-22 W^T^ v^ . ^jcb 3Tii^ 5^+ii<=h ^f^a r ^-^ "\,--\:- G.Singh + '^-f ^^ ^TPTT^T, '^ftWT^, ^<yii^y 3ff^?T M^ck (2? ^MC^lSbHicb '^ 200 •fep^y' 3^['^IT^R ^rf^T Tractbr ia que^stion was beiag purpose is concemed, leamed para 13 of .the award that at fl-| gouig to fhe River for bniiguig agricultural field aad, fherefore, j agnculturalpiirpose. This fhidii) the evidence of Wifaess No, 1, Jvl aad no contrary evidence was ad(^ (ised for otlier tliaa agricultoLiral Tdibunal has recorded a fiadin.g iii |.e relevant tiine the Tractor was sfoid which was to t)e used ia the fh.e Tractor was engaged ia the kg of learaed Tribunal is based on 4nimaa, the Driver of tlie Tractor [.uced by fhe Insuraitce Conipany. 3. Therefore, for fhe fo^egoing opiaion tliaf, fhe appeUant/Insurjaiice to raise a ground which requiresj the appeal is devoid ofiiierit In[ be disKiissed aad is disinissed at A. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge ^l^f<rt41l 1:TP:^f "^ f^T^ ipsl^K '^'^rf^R^Tf^T discussion, we are of flie Conipany has not been able consideration 6f fhis appeal aiid fhe result, fhe appeal is Uable to ttie adniission stage itsetf. Sd//- V.K.Shrivastava i Judge [^t^ ^fer^