Advocates:
['PANKAJ AGRAWAL', '', 'PREETI YADAV', 'SUNIL SAHU', '', 'SUMIT SHRIVASTAVA']

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MAC No. 579 of 2015

•

Dular Singh S/o Late Shri Fulsingh by Caste-Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o

Village Khamhariya, Post-Doma, Thana And Tahsil-Dhamtari, Civil And

Revenue District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

Versus

1. Kulwant Singh, R/o Janta Cycle Stores Shastri Chowk Dhamtari Civil And

Revenue Distt.- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

2. Kulwant Singh S/o Gurudyal Singh Tuleja R/o Janta Cycle Stores Shastri

Chowk Dhamtari Civil And Revenue Distt.- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Regional Monager Oriental

Insurance Company Limited, Kachahari Chowk Jail Road Raipur, District-

Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

MAC No. 1057 of 2015

•

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Manager, Oriental

Insurance Company Limited, Katcheri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, District-Raipur

Chhattisgarh Non - Applicant No. 3

---- Appellant

Versus

1. Dular Singh S/o Late Fulsingh Aged About 30 Years R/o Khamhariya, Post

Doma, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Claimant

2. Kulwant Singh S/o Gurudayal Singh Tuleja R/o Janta Cycle Stores, Shastri

Chowk, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Non - Applicant No.2

---- Respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant

:

Shri Santhosh Das, Advocate on behalf

of Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate

For Respondent/Insurance Company

:

Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order on Board

23.09.2021

1.

As MAC-579 of 2015 and MAC-1057 of 2015 are arising out of same

impugned award dated 28.02.2015, passed by the Additional Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, District Dhamtari (for short,’Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case-1

of 2014, these two appeals are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

MAC-579 of 2015 is filed by claimant seeking enhancement of amount of

compensation, whereas, MAC-1057 of 2015 is filed by insurer of offending

vehicle challenging fastening of liability to satisfy the amount of compensation

Mac 579 and 1057 of 2015

2

on the ground that offending vehicle was a goods carrying vehicle. Deceased

was travelling on goods carriage vehicle along with about more than 65

passengers, as such, she was gratuitous passenger and risk of gratuitous

passenger is not covered under the policy.

3.

Facts relevant for disposal of these appeals as pleaded in claim

application are that on 09.01.1997, Urmilabai was standing near Bus Stand at

village-Domar along with her friends for travelling to Raipur. While so, one

Metador bearing No.MP 26 B-3153 (hereafter, referred to as ‘offending

vehicle’) driven by NA1 rashly and negligently, turned turtle and met with an

accident. In the accident, Urmila bai came under offending vehicle, suffered

grievous injuries and died on sport. Incident was reported to concerned Police

Station, based upon which criminal case was registered against NA1.

4.

Claimant, son of deceased Urmilabai filed application under Section 166

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act of 1988’), seeking total

compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- on different heads, pleading therein that on the

date of accident, deceased was working as labourer and earning Rs.1,200/-

per month.

5.

NA1, driver of offending vehicle submitted his reply, admitting that at the

time of accident, he was driving offending vehicle. He was possessed with

valid and effective driving license. It was further pleaded that he was not the

driver engaged by owner of offending vehicle, but he was asked by driver

Shatruhan Maratha, driver of offending vehicle engaged by NA2 to take care of

the vehilce as he has to