N.K. Agarwal, J.@mdashThis is driver and owner''s appeal against the award dated 15.07.2009 passed by Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short the Tribunal'') in claim case No. 160/2008. As against the compensation of Rs. 15,48,000/- claimed by respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants by filing claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''MV Act'') for the death of Smt. Nanbai in the motor accident on 17.08.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,48,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual payment.
2. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence driving of Hero Honda C.D. 100 SS Motor cycle bearing registration No. CG 06-A/1046 by its driver appellant No. 1 - Bholaram Patel; Smt. Nanbai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the said accident; respondent No. 4 /Reliance General Insurance Company Limited not liable for payment of compensation as the deceased was sitting in the motor-cycle as a pillion rider and was not covered under the policy of insurance; assessed and awarded aforesaid sum as compensation against the appellants.
3. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant while referring the order of acquittal of appellant No. 1 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahassamund in Criminal Case No. 295/2008 (Ex.D-2) would submit: there was no negligence on the part of the driver. It was further contended: the respondent No. 4/Insurance Company has been wrongly exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants.
4. Per contra, Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4/Reliance General Insurance Company Limited supported the award and submitted: in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly passed the award against the appellants exonerating respondent No. 4/insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants which does not call for any interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record including award impugned.
6. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties in the case including statement of eye witness Nanhuram (AW-2) and the judgment of acquittal filed by the appellants, has held appellant No. 1 guilty of negligence. I do not see any reason to hold otherwise.
7. So far as relevancy of judgment of acquittal of Criminal Court in civil cases is concerned, the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the Case of Manila Dhanvanti and others v. Phulwant Mahendra Singh and others, 1994 M.P.L.J. 674, placing reliance upon its earlier decision rendered in the case of
8. Further, appellant No. 1 was acquitted by the Criminal Court as prosecution has failed to establish appellant No. 1''s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Although admission of the driver in criminal cases is admissible u/s 18/21 of the Evidence Act. 1972, but the judgment of acquittal cannot be and should not be used to hold driver of the vehicle as not guilty of negligence. In view of above, the submission of Shri Pradhan with regard to innocence of appellant No. 1 cannot be accepted.
9. So far as the other ground raised by Mr. Pradhan is concerned, the same is also sans merit. The policy is neither comprehensive policy nor is package policy. The respondent-insurance company is neither statutorily liable to cover the risk of pillion rider nor had undertaken the risk of pillion rider by entering into special contract with the owner of the vehicle and by charging extra premium therefore. In the absence whereof, liability of payment of compensation to the legal representatives of the pillion rider cannot be fastened upon the respondent-insurance company and the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability of payment of compensation to the claimants.
10. No other points have been raised.
11. For the foregoing, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to and it hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
