Bharat Lal Patel S/o Parkhit Patel Aged About 52 (at present aged about 58 v. 1 - Ramesh Sidar S/o Karmaha Sidar Aged About 45 Years Occupation None 2
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:36187 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 99 of 2019 Bharat Lal Patel S/o Parkhit Patel Aged About 52 (at present aged about 58 years) Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Karichhapar, P.S., Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh..........(Owner) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Ramesh Sidar S/o Karmaha Sidar Aged About 45 Years Occupation None 2 - Smt. Janki Bai W/o Ramesh Sidar Aged About 40 Years Occupation None 3 - Minor Janet S/o Ramesh Aged About 10 Years Minor Occupation Student 4 - Minor Radheshyam S/o Ramesh Aged About 12 Years 5 - Minor Jivardhan S/o Ramesh Aged About 14 Years 6 - Minor Kumar Meena D/o Ramesh No. 4 to 6 are Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Father Ramesh Sidar All R/o Village Karichhapar, P.S., Chakradhrnagar, Raigarh,tahsil Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.........(Claimants) 7 - Kran Manjhi S/o Hemanand Manjhi Aged About 27 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Loing, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh..........(Driver) 8 - Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Raigarh, 2nd Floor Sattigudi Chowk, Dadar Bazar Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh............(Insurer) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.12 10:26:01 +0530 -2- ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s)
Legal Reasoning
regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh², Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.4 and including b Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singhs. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent 2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to Respondent 2 insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the -7- same from the tractor owner, Respondent 1.” 13. For the foregoing discussions and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal. Appeal being sans merit is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen
Arguments
: Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate For Resp. No. 5 _______________________________________________________ Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate : S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 25/07/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle challenging the award dated 27th November 2018 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (CG) in Claim Case No.858 of 2012. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 6/ claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 24.01.2012 Pintu alias Murli, aged 19 years while working in tractor CG 13-L/1459 and trolley CG 13-L/1457 of non-applicant No.2, reached near pond of village Kotarliya station, sitting in the tractor. While so, non-applicant No.1 drove the vehicle rashly and carelessly, due to which Pintu alias Murli, who was sitting on the tractor, fell down and the wheel of the tractor ran over him which resulted in his death. Before his death he was earning Rs.150/- per day. Claimants claimed total compensation amount of Rs.34,24,000/- due to the death of the deceased Pintu alias Murli, from non-applicants under different heads. 3. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 by filing their written statement have denied the pleadings made in the claim application and accident caused by -3- their vehicle is also denied. The vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3 therefore if it is held that Pintu died due to motor accidental injuries caused by vehicle fo non-applicants No. 1& 2 then the liability to pay amount of compensation would be upon respondent No.3 4. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that the claimants have not pleaded income and age of deceased correctly. Driver of offending tractor did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Conditions of the insurance policy have been violated, hence the insurance company is not liable to pay amount of compensation . 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Pintu alias Murli, suffered fatal injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was found proved, held non- applicant No.2/ Owner of the vehicle liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.4500/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.5,16,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this appeal is filed by owner of the offending tractor and trolley. The tractor and trolley was insured with non-applicant No.3/respondent No.8 which was effective for the period from 09.12.2011 till 08.12.2012. She contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the owner of tractor and trolley. She contended that under the policy, appellant has -4- deposited premium for six employees/labourers and therefore when once insurance company has charged premium covering risk for labourer travelling in tractor trolley, insurance company cannot escape from its liability to indemnify the insured. In support of her contention she referred to insurance policy placed on record as Ex.D-1 and Ex.D- 2. She submits that at the time of accident deceased was travelling on tractor trolley and therefore liability to satisfy the amount of compensation was upon insurance company. 7. Learned counsel for appearing for respondents No. 1 to 6/claimants and counsel for respondent No.8/Insurance Company would support the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 9. Perusal of the record would show that claimant in para-11 of the claim application has pleaded that on the date of accident deceased, Pintu alias Murli aged about 19 years was working as labourer and he suffered motor accidental injury by falling from tractor. In para-22 of the application also similar plea is made that due to rash and negligent driving of tractor deceased fell down from tractor and tractor ran over deceased. Claimants have also produced copy of FIR as Ex.P-2 which mentions that complainant Ramesh father of deceased was informed that his son fell down from the tractor and suffered injuries. Witness AW1 Ramesh Sidar and AW-2 Jairam Soura have made statement that deceased fell down from tractor due to rash and negligent driving by driver of tractor . 10. From the aforementioned facts and evidence available on record it is -5- not in dispute that deceased was travelling on tractor at the time of accident and he fell down from tractor due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor. 11. Copy of insurance policy is placed on record as Ex.D-1 covering risk for period from 09.12.2011 till 08.12.2012 whereas date of accident is 24.01.2012. Schedule of premium as mentioned in policy mentions that premium was paid for basic own damage premium of Rs.5200/-, own damage premium for Trailer attached of Rs.1346/- , basis third party premium of Rs.1350/-, third party premium for trailer attached of Rs.930./-. There is no premium paid covering risk of workers/labourers . Premium paid is only with regard to own damage and third party. In view of aforementioned oral and documentary evidence available on record, submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the risk of six labourers/workers are also covered under the insurance policy is not sustainable, it is perverse to evidence available on record and therefore it is repelled. No other ground is raised before this Court to challenge the award of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. 12. So far as the direction issued by learned Claims Tribunal with respect to recover the amount of compensation of Rs.3,96,000 from non- applicant No.2/owner of the offending vehicle is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra & Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 432 has considered the similar issue with regard to issuance of direction to first pay amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same and it was observed as under: -6- “10. The High Court, however, found in favour of Respondent 2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person, namely, the driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (Respondent 2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor. That conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case. 11. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant claimant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that