Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Sonmati

Ms. Chitra Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. T.S. Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 2 21/09/2022

The instant two appeals arise out of the common award dated

13.12.2014 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 474/2014 and Motor Accident Claim Case No.471/2014. Vide the impugned award in MAC No. 282/2015 the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,96,920 and in MAC No. 281/2015 the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,01,400.

The facts of the case is that on 06.06.2019 when the claimants along with others were traveling in the Commander Jeep bearing registration No. CG-17/ZT-0223 met with an accident resulting in injuries caused to many persons traveling in the said Commander Jeep. Five of the persons who were injured namely the two claimants in these two appeals Smt. Sonmati Bai and Smt. Fulmati Bai along with Smt. Pramila, Smt. Tuli, Shri Santosh Sahu had filed separate claim applications, which were registered as Claim Case Nos. 474/2014, 471/2014, 470/2014, 472/2014 and 473/2014.

All the claim applications were taken up together and considered and a common award has been passed. Apart from the two awards under challenge in these two appeals, the Tribunal had also in the case of Claim Case No.470/2014 awarded a compensation of Rs.6000 along with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of application. Likewise, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 472/2014 in the case of Smt. Tuli, the amount of compensation awarded was Rs.5000 with interest @7.5% p.a. Similarly, in the case of the claim application of Shri Santosh Sahu i.e. Claim Case No. 473/2014 the amount of Rs.7000 was awarded with interest @7.5% p.a. 3

These three awards passed by the Tribunal have been duly complied with and honored and the amount awarded has also been paid by the Tribunal. No challenge has been made by the insurance company so far as the liability that has been fastened upon it. It is only in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 474/2014 and 471/2014 that the award passed is under challenge in these two appeals.

The primary contention of the appellant in assailing the two awards is that the Commander Jeep was being operated for commercial purpose and the persons traveling in the said vehicle had in fact paid their fair for traveling in the said vehicle which amounted to the breach of contract between the insurer and insured. Moreover, the policy which was issued was only a private car, liability only policy, which would not cover the risk of the gratuitous passengers. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions in the case of “Manuara Khatun and others v. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others” 2017 ACJ 1031, “National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan & another” 2013 ACJ 199 “New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi and others” 2009 ACJ 998.

Perusal of the pleadings and evidence which have come on record, particularly the statements made by the claimants in both these appeals. There is a specific averment both in the main statement as also in the cross-examination that the two claimants were traveling in the said Commander Jeep without paying any sort of fair as they were acquainted with the driver, who had offered a lift to the claimants. In addition, there is also the evidence which has come on record, particularly the insurance policy, which had insured the vehicle to show that the owner of the vehicle i.e. the respondent No.3- Lachinder Nag 4 had in fact while getting the vehicle insured had also covered the risk of 9 passengers. This fact so far as payment of extra premium covering the risk of 9 passengers is not in dispute. As regards the claimants having traveled in the Jeep on paying fair has not been established by the insurance company by leading any cogent evidence, particularly when there is a categorical denial by the two claimants in the two appeals herein.

In the absence of any proof otherwise to disprove the statement of claimants, the contention of the appellant to treat the claimants as gratuitous passengers would not be acceptable, particularly when the owner had taken the policy which included covering of the risk of 9 passengers. For the said reasons, this Court does not find any strong case made out calling for an interference.

This Court also is not inclined to entertain the appeals for the reason that out of the 5 claim applications, which stood allowed against the insurance company it did not challenge the award in three of the claim applications and have honored the award. This fact forces this Court to draw an inference that the insurance company in fact has accepted its liability covering the risk of the insured in respect of those three cases. Hence under the said circumstances, the appellant cannot be permitted to turn around now and challenge the liability part only in those cases where the amount of compensation is on the higher side.

The two appeals thus fails and are accordingly rejected. Ved Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge