S!:l;i- •llil ^ ^€ INTHEHIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGSARHATBILASPUR MISC. APPBAL(C1 N0. -"^ f OF 20Q7 APPEALUNDERSECTIONfTSOFMbtORVEHICLESACT, 1988 Appellant N%n-Applicant ho. 3 ^nited India Insurance Conipany Liinited, Near AnupamaTalkies, Jagdalpur, j Versus - ondents l^ RamlalNag, S^o Chajnruram N|ag, Driver, R/oVillage-F|alriar,Tehsrl 8s Di^tt. Dantejwada Non-AoDlicant No. 1 2. ^ Mofirani, S/o^^L^ (Vehicle Owner), R/o - Taraipara, Mailabada, P.S. Kuakonda, Distf. Dahtewada 1 Noh-Applicarit iio. 2 } S^^^ajdkarm^^^H Late MadkamiJSukka, aged -25^ears;':Y-'-.'::/:'\-1:,-..,^ y Madkanii Hadnie, S^Q Madlcami Suklca^ aged^ years ] KosaS^b Kesha, ^ ^] aged 53 year$,| ^ ^t^ Madkarni Jogi| W/6 Madkaini Kosa, aged 50 ^•'^'':-years.: •;';;.... ^ (Sl. Np. 4Minor through^^^m^ Madkami Hadme) i (Sl.No.3tp6R/omilage;- Dodpal, P.S. Qadiras, Tehsil - ; Konta, Distf. Danfewada (Chhattisgarh) , 1 v CLAIMANTS Claim inApoeal fQr^ettineaside and 7 ormLOidlficationof ,,,i^^'-^;;!:i^.:^J^^ vahied at Rs. 5.07JO^O/-(Ruoec^FrveLacsSevenThousand .^,:'^,''^ohly):;^'-..:1:'1-^ feeafRxedRs. 157- (ReQeiptregardmgdepc^itiQnofRs.50,OQO/-isbeingattached l/herewith);f';':';^ ;'.':,''(^ 'asa^ai&ia '^' ^. T«>ynysi'.Afa,; E&i^si® HIGHCOURTOFCMMATTISGARHATBILASPUR D.B.: Hon'bleShriyustiGe I.M. Quddusi and Hon'bleShriJusticePrashantKumarMishra Miscellaneous ApDeal (C.) No.351 of 2007 ADpeltant versus ResDondents United India Insurance Company Limited Ramlal Nag and others Present: Shri SanjayS. Agrawal,counsel forthe appeltant. Shri Alok Dewangan, counsel for respondents No.3, 5 and 6. None fpr respondents No.land 2 though represented. Noneforrespondent No.4thoughserved. Miscellaneous Appeal underSection 173 ofthe MotorVehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passedon5thApril,2011) Per I.IVI.Quddusi.J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has b^en filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 11-12-2006 passedby the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dantewada*in Claim CaseNo. 137/2004 insofar as the impugned award imposes liability upon theinsurance companyto pay compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case, according to the claimants, are that deceased Madkami Sukka was working as an agricultural tabourer in the fields of nqh-claimant Motiram, the owner of tractor bearing .'^. • ' registration No.Cp 18 G 0155 and trolley bearing registration No.CG '\ < 18 G 0156. On th^ date of accident, i.e., 14-4-2004, the deceased, after unloading manure from the tractor-trolley, was going Village j.o Ao!|od j.o suoii.ipuoo p L|oe8jq jeep SBM ej^ 'ejojejeqi "JIB^ \, . ^eqi 898 olAeiioj} eq} ui 6uio6 QJQM suosjed eujos ^ue sBeiiiA eqi ui •IV jie^ e SBM ejeq^ ieqi POUOIIUQLU ueoq seq }\ qoiL^M LI-! 'Lueqi Aq pouBis A|np siu9LU9ieis eiejedes JjeLii ueAiB 8Aeq AGIIOJI-JOIOBJI QLI^O JQUMO 8L|i pue j9Aup eqi 'os|e joieBiissAui-eouejnsu! eqi pi 'siqi sepissg •Aoi|0d 86e^oed uesi^i sqi jspun jopeji eqi pQjnsui peq Auedujoo souejnsui sqi -osodjnd lejniinouBe JQ^ pssn Suiaq SBM jopeji 8L|i IBLJI pies sq louueo }\ 'Qjopjeqi 'pue luspiooe aqi ui iods eqi uo peip pQseeoep eqi pue pejnfui 'jopeji eqi LIIIM peqoeue AGIIOJI eqlui Suinis 'suosjsd 33 ieqi SMoqs Kpdej uoiieLUHUj 6j9LU soiiod aill •leunquisLuieio e^ p PJOOQJ eqi peenjQd©AeqQAA -g •AuedLUoo Qouejnsui/iUBUjieio -uou 8L|i uodn sq ||eqs uoiiesuodLuoo p lunoaie OLII p lueLuAed ^o Aiiiiqeii^eLUud }eqi p|9q jequn^ SBM i| •Stueiii.iep-uou sqi uo pjeMB eqi A^siies 01 Aijiiqeii Buipioq s^ueLUiep eqt 10 jnoAe^ ui -/OOO'ZO'S'sy p uoiiBsusdLUOo pQpjeMB |eunqui SLUIBIQ sqi •^ '-/OOO'OS'Z'sy p uoiiesuedujoo BuiLUiep (,py 9L|l, Mpo^ouoq) 9861. 'PV SSPNSA JOIQ|/\| 9L|Ho 991> uoiioss jQpun uoi^eoiidde ue pejjepjd p89e839p equo jsqiOLU pue JQLI^ 'jeiqBnep 'Q^IM '•e-.i 'siueiuiep eqi •iods oqi uo peip pue luspiooe sqi ui uosjsd siq uo sQunfu! snoAeuB peuieisns pesesOQpeqi •6eN |B|Luey IUBUJI.BIO-UOU Aq A8||oji-jopeji eqi p BuiAup lusBiiBeu pue qeej o} enp ©tijnipeujni Aeiioji eqi 'peoy epeM9iuea-euj>|ns uo e^nBpuiqqo sejesnLig 96e||iA JBQU peqoesj A8||oji-jopej» eqi se uoos sy 'esodjnd |ejni|nou6e jo^ AQ||OJI 9qi ui Buipu epBMe|!e|/\| •n ^ •* . . 3 insyrance and as such the insurancecompany could not have been held liable to pay thecompensatjon. 6. Accordingly, we allow the miscellaneousappeal and set aside the part of the impugned award by which the insurance company has been held liable to pay the compensatibn. However, it will be open for the claimants to realize the amountof compensation from the owner of the tractor-trolley. In case, any amount is deposited by the appellanVinsurance company, the same shall be allowed to be withdrawn by it, however, if any amount has been paid to the claimants, it will be open for the appellanVinsurance company to recover the same from the owner of the tractor-trolley. There shall bejiQ_orcler as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Gopal Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge K^ •H ^.'< '\ ^aM