Dismissed

Surendra Kumar Sahu v. Milibai and Others

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2010MA/291/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an owners' appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligent driving. It held that since the policy did not cover passenger insurance, the insurer was correctly exempted from liability.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the award dated 13-1-2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is dismissed.

Surendra Kumar Sahu Vs Milibai and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

EM THE mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

M.A. ^ 1 /2004

^m.Q-a

^ APPELLANT :

^ Surendr kumar sahu S/o makliaalal sahu aged about 30 years Occupation- Agriculturist R/o vill- Patharipali, Tehsil - Sarangarh, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) [Tractor^owner]

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RESPONDENTS

¶8

RESPONDENTS ^ 1. Milibai w/o Santram @ Gadaram Age about 32 years, R/o R/o villDevgaon Patharipali ,Tehsil ^ Sarangarh,Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) [Claimant] ^^ ^y '•1. Kanhiya lal sahu S/o Nanki ram ;.^-(>y sahu ,aged about 36 years R/o villDevgaon Patfaaripali ,Tehsil - .^a Saraiigarh,Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) [ Driver] ^^ %€^"/ The Orient insurance co. Ltd. ^ ^twari Bazar Distt. Raigarh(C.G.) [insurer] ^' Appeal U/S 173 ofThe Motor Vehicle Act 1988 ^L

¶9

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR

¶10

M.A, Np, 291 ^>F 2004

APPELLNT

Surendr Kumar Sahu

Versiis

RE^PONDENTS

Milibai and ofhers

SINGLE BENCH;- Hon. Shri N.K. Aganyal, J

¶17

PRESENT:-

¶18

Shri Rajnish Smgh Baghel, Advocate, for appellant. Shri Roop Naik, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 1. Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, Adv. for fhe respondent No. 3. None for respondeut No. 2.

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

(2-2-2010)

¶21

This is owners appeal against the award dated 13-1-2004 passed by IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in Claim Case No. 50/2002 whereby and whereunder, an amount of Rs. 1,22,000/has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 9% per annuiu from the date of application till its recovery in favour of the claimant holding appellaiit liable for its payment exonerating the iiisurance company from its Mability to pay compensation.

¶22

Facts ofthe case, in brief, are as under: -

¶23

3.0n 26-4-2002, Rishavdev aged about 12 years i.e. son of claimaiit Milibai was sitting in trolley beartng registration

¶24

< No. CG-13-A/0429 attached with tractor bearing registi'ation No. CG-13-A-0428. The said tractor and troUey tumed turtle, pui'suaiit to that, Rishavdev sustained grievous injuries and on way to hospital, he died.

¶25

The clalmant, unfortunate mofher of the deceased, ciainied Rs. 6,10,000/- as compensation for tlie deatti ofher son in the said accident against the driver, the owner and the iiisLirer of the said tractor and troUey by lllmg application under Section 166 ofthe Act

¶26

In the reply to the said claim application, the owner admitted the fact that fhe deceased died in said accident but

^y^ :'• i

denied the fact that said accident took place due to rash and negligent driviag of the driver of the said tractor and trolley. The insurance company by filing its written statement took a spectfic plea that fhe said tractor was being used for carr^'ing passenger at fhe time of accident ui violation of the condition of the policy aad, fherelbre, the lo.suraace compaDj is not Uable to indemiitfy fhe insured.

¶31

Parties led their evidence on the issues framed by the Tribmial.

¶32

¶33

Leaned Tribuiial on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submlssions made recorded a fuiding fhat tlie accident occurred due to rash and uegligeut drivuig of the driver of the tractor; fhe elaiinant is entitled for Rs. 1,22,000/- as compensation; since the said tractor was carrying passengers, fhe deceased was also one of the passengers, therefore, the nisuraiice company is not liable for payment of compensation to the claunants; exonerated the insm'ance company from its liabaity but held Uable the respondent insuraace compaiiy to first pay the compensation and then recover it from appellant.

¶34

Shri Baghel, leamed counsel for the appellaiit would submit that leamed Tribunal went wrong in holdmg tl-iat the said accident took place due to rash and negMgent driving ofthe driver of the tractor and also in exonerating the iiisurance company from its Mability to pay compensation.

¶35

On flie contrary, leamed counsel for fhe respondents supported the award and submitted that leanied Tribunal has passed the said award on cogent reasons which is based on appreciation of evidence and deseryes to be upheld.

¶36

I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as record of tlie Tribunal^

¶37

The claimant examined two witaesses A.W. 2 Devendra and A.W. 3 Saiitram, who were also occupant of the said tractor and were eye-witnesses to the said accident. They have categoricaUy deposed that the said tractor tumed turtle due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

¶38

^^^^ ^%^y

¶39

ti-actor Kanhaiyalal aiid due to that, the deceased sustaiaed severe iiijuries. He was taken to hospital in the jeep of Hari Shankar Patel, but on way he died. The statement staiids unrebutted. On the otiier hand, the appellant did not examine driver Kanhaiyalal. It is also not tn dispute that police case has been registered against driver Kanhaiyalal for said accident.

¶40

In view above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in fhe finding recorded by learned Tribunal that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of fhe tractor.

¶41

So far as second contentiou raised by Shri Baghel is concemed, it is tiite law fhat fhe tractor is not meant for carrying passengers aiid the iusurauce company is not statutorily liable to cover tlie risk of passeugers camed in the tractor. The appeUant owner has not shown or proved that by taldng extra premium, the insurance company has undertaken fhe UabUity of such persons. tn such situation, leamed Tribunal has nghtly exonerated the tasLirance company from its liability.

¶42

In view of above, I do not Imd any substaace in ftie appeal preferred by the appellant, the same being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶43

No order as to costs.

¶44

Consequently, mterim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶45

Sd/^ N.K. Agrawal Judge

Surendra Kumar Sahu v. Milibai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Sahu v. Milibai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhawani Nirmalkar and Others Vs Hemraj and Others

Gati Ltd. and Others Vs Smt Naveena Jha

Durga Prasad Vs Asharam and Ors.

Ravi Kumr Vaishnav and Anr. Vs Sushilabai Yadav

Bisauha and Another Vs Gyan Chand and Others

Smt.Kanti Bai and Others Vs Ramkumar and Others