The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Madina v. 1
Case Details
Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.11 10:56:52 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:46186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 210 of 2023 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Madina Building, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.5) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. Smt. Kumari Bai W/o Late Budharu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Ganaud, Police Station Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No.1) 2. Santuram Baghel S/o Late Budharu Ram Baghel Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Ganaud, Police Station Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No.2) 3. Sumit Kumar S/o Late Budharu Ram Baghel Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Kumari Bai (Respondent No.1), R/o Village Ganaud, Police Station Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No.3) 4. Kumari Heena Baghel D/o Late Budharu Ram Baghel Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Kumari Bai (Respondent No.1), R/o Village Ganaud, Police Station Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No.4) 5. Smt. Nainbati (Deleted ) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 10- 09-2025 6. Kaushal Kumar Chandrakar S/o Suresh Chandrakar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Mokhla, Police Station, Tahsil Aarang And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.1) 7. Suresh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Ramprasad Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Mokhla, Police Station, Tahsil Aarang And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.2) 2 8. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Shivkumar Bhawan Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Non- Applicant No.3) 9. Manager B S C P L Infrastructure Limited, 229 K M O N N H 06 (53) Village Ghodari, P.O. Birkoni, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.4) --- Respondent(s) WITH WP227 No. 230 of 2023 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Madina Building, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Sukhchand S/o Heeralal Kadra Aged About 40 Years R/o Vill. Ganaud, P.S. Rakhi, Tah. Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Kaushal Kumar Chandrakar S/o Suresh Chandrakar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Mokhla, P.S. Tah. Aarang And Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Suresh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Ramprasad Aged About 51 Years R/o Vill. Mokhla, P.S. Tah. Aarang And Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Shivkumar Bhawan Pandari, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 5. Manager B S C P L Infrastructure Limited, 229 K M O N N H 06 (53) Vill. Ghodari, P.O. Birkoni, Tah. And Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WITH WP227 No. 416 of 2023 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Devisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 2, Behind Jeewan Bima Office- Pandari, Raipur (Non Applicant No. 4), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 3 1. Sima Bai Wd/o Late Basant Baghel Aged About 22 Years R/o Gujra, Post Office- Rewan, Police Station- Mandir Hasaud (Mobile No. 7697341751) (Applicant No. 1), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Dikshit D/o Late Basant Baghel Aged About 2 Years R/o Gujra, Post Office- Rewan, Police Station- Mandir Hasaud (Mobile No. 7697341751) (Applicant No. 2), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Sukaluram S/o Gachhalal Gaikwad Aged About 50 Years Respondent No. 1 And 2 Legal Representative Father And Grand Father- Respondent No. 3- Sukaluram, S/o Gachhalal Gaikwad R/o Gujra, Post Office- Rewan, Police Station- Mandir Hasaud (Mobile No. 7697341751) (Applicant No. 3), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Suresh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Ramprasad Chandrakar R/o Village- Mokhla, Police Station Aarang (Non Applicant No. 1), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Officer In-Charge, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Pandari, Raipur (Non Applicant No. 2), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. B. S. C. P. L. Infrastructure Limited Theough Its Officer In-Charge Village- Ghodari, Post Office- Birkoni, P. O., Tahsil And (Non Applicant No. 3), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 7. Kaushal Kumar Chandrakar S/o Suresh Kumar Chandrakar, R/o Village- Mokhla, Police Station- Aarang (Non Applicant No. 5), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH WP227 No. 213 of 2023 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- Madina Building, Kutchery Chowk Raipur ........Non-Applicant No. 5, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Jhabbu Ram Baghel S/o Bali Ram Baghel Aged About 32 Years Tahsil- R/o Village Ganaud, Aarang .........Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Police Station Rakhi, 4 2. Kaushal Kumar Chandrakar S/o Suresh Chandrakar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Mokhla, Police Station Tahsil Aarang And District Raipur ..........Non- Applicant No. 1, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Suresh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Ramprasad Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Mokhla, Police Station, Tahsil Aarang And District Raipur .........Non- Applicant No. 2, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Shivkumar Bhawan Pandari Raipur ...........Non- Applicant No. 3, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Manager B S C P L Infrastructure Limited, 229 K M O N N H 06 (53) Village- Ghodari, P. O. Birkoni, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund ...........Non- Applicant No. 4, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH WP227 No. 218 of 2023 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Madina Building Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur- Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 5) ---Petitioner(s) Versus
Legal Reasoning
1. Smt. Rajwanteen Chelak W/o Beniram Chelak R/o Village Ganaud, P.S. Rakhi, Rahsil Aarang, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Kaushal Kumar Chandrakar S/o Suresh Chandrakar, R/o Village Mokhla, P.S. Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 1) 3. Suresh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Ramprasad R/o Village Mokhla, P.S. Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No. 2) 4. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Shivkumar Bhawan, Pandari, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant) 5. Manager, Bscpl Infrastructure Limited, 229 K M O N N H 56 Village Ghodari, P.O. Birkoni, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No. 4) --- Respondent(s) 5 WITH WP227 No. 219 of 2023 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office - Madina Building, Kutuchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh................... (Non - Applicant No. 5) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Smt. Kala Bai Nirmalkar W/o Mahesh Nirmalkar Aged About 35 Years R/o Vill. Ganaud, P.S. Rakhi, Tah - Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh .................... (Applicant) 2. Kaushal Kumar Chandrakar S/o Suresh Chandrakar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Mokhla, P.S., Tahsil - Aarang And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.................. (Non- Applicant No. 1) 3. Suresh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Ramprasad Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Mokhla, P.S., Tahsil - Aarang And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh..................................... (Non - Applicant No. 2) 4. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Shivkumar Raipur Raipur, Bhawan Chhattisgarh....................... (Non - Applicant No. 3) District Pandari, 5. Manager B S C P L Infrastructure Limited, 229 K M O N N H 06 (53) Village - Ghodari, P.O. - Birkoni, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh......................... (Non- Applicant No. 4) --- Respondent(s) WITH WP227 No. 232 of 2023 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- Madina Building, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ..................... (Non - Applicant No. 5) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Smt. Santkumari W/o Santosh Harvansh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ganaud, P.S. - Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh...............(Applicant) 6 2. Kaushal Kumar Chandrakar S/o Suresh Chandrakar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Mokhla, P.S. Tahsil Aarang And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh........................(Non-Applicant No.1) 3. Suresh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Ramprasad Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Mokhla, P.S. Tahsil- Aarang And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh......................(Non-Applicant No.2) 4. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Compny Limited Shivkumar Raipur, Raipur, Bhawan Chhattisgarh......................(Non-Applicant No.3) District- Pandari, 5. Manager Bscpl Infrastructure Limited 229 Kmon Nh 06(53) Village Ghodari, Post Office Birkoni, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh......................(Non-Applicant No.4) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents – Driver & Owner For Respondent – BAJAJ Allianz For Respondent – BSCPL Infra. Ltd. : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 10/09/2025 1) In this batch of petitions, petitioner has challenged the orders passed by learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur in following Claim Cases dated 23.11.2022 whereby applications moved under Section 167 of MV Act, 1988 have been rejected. Writ Petition Claim Case Status of individuals WP227/210/2023 Claim Case No. 722/2016 WP227/213/2023 Claim Case No. 669/2016 Budharu Ram Baghel (deceased) Jhabbu Ram Baghel (injured) WP227/218/2023 Claim Case No. Smt. Rajwanteen Chelak 7 781/2016 (injured) WP227/219/2023 Claim Case No. Smt. Kala Bai (injured) 668/2016 WP227/230/2022 Claim Case No. Sukhchand (injured) 723/2016 WP227/232/2022 Claim Case No. Smt. Santkumari (injured) 714/2016 WP227/416/2023 Claim Case No. Basant Baghel (deceased) 65/2017 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 06.03.2016, the aforementioned persons, who were laborers employed by the respondent–BSCPL Infra. Ltd. were traveling in the pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. CG–04–HX–6018 met with an accident. He further submits that two laborers, namely, Budharu Ram Baghel and Basant Baghel died whereas five laborers, namely, Jhabbu Ram Baghel, Smt. Rajwanteen Chelak, Smt. Kala Bai, Sukhchand and Smt. Santkumari sustained grievous injuries. He contends that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent–BAJAJ Allianz General Insurance Company Limited whereas the policy under Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 was issued on the name of respondent–BSCPL Infra. Ltd. by the petitioner–Insurance Company. He fairly submits that the policy issued under Employees’ Compensation Act by the petitioner– Insurance Company was valid and effective on the date of accident but it would only satisfy the claims with regard to Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 but the claimants have arrayed the petitioner as non-applicant in their respective claim cases to satisfy the award claimed in those applications under 8 Section 166 of MV Act, 1988. He argues that claimants have filed respective claim cases under Section 166 of MV Act, 1988, therefore petitioner–Insurance Company is neither necessary party nor proper party in those claim cases but the learned Tribunal erred in law while rejecting the applications moved under Section 167 of MV Act, 1988. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents oppose. They submit that though the offending vehicle was insured with respondent–BAJAJ Allianz General Insurance Company Limited but the claimants were employees of respondent–BSCPL Infra. Ltd. and they were covered with valid and effective insurance policy under Employees’ Compensation Act, therefore petitioner–Insurance Company is a necessary party. They further submit that learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the applications moved by the petitioner under Section 167 of MV Act, 1988. 4) There is no representation on behalf of the claimants. 5) Section 167 of the MV Act, 1988 reads as under :- 167. Option regarding claims for compensation — Notwithstanding anything in certain cases. contained in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. 6) Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC reads as under :- 10.(2) Court may strike out or add parties. — The 9 Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. Bare reading of this provision would make it clear that the Court may strike out any party who has been improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant. 7) In the present case, claimants filed claim cases under the provisions of Section 166 of MV Act and impleaded petitioner– Insurance Company as one of the non-applicants. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent– BAJAJ Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and respondent–BSCPL Infra. Ltd. was the employer of the claimants. 8) Evidently, petitioner issued policy in favor of respondent–BSCPL Infra. Ltd. under the Employees Compensation Act but present is not a case where claimants have filed claims cases under Employees’ Compensation Act, rather the claimants have claimed compensation on the account of death of two persons and injuries sustained by the rest of them under the provisions of Section 166 of MV Act, 1988. 9) In the opinion of this Court, since the claimants moved claim applications according to Section 166 of MV Act, 1988, they ought have sought compensation from the insurer of the offending 10 vehicle and the driver and owner. Thus, petitioner–Insurance Company is neither necessary party nor proper party in the claim cases filed by the claimants, therefore learned Tribunal committed error of law while rejecting the applications moved by the petitioner in aforementioned claim cases. 10) As a result, the orders impugned dated 23.11.2022 are hereby set aside and the applications moved under Section 167 of MV Act / Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC stand allowed. 11) Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE A j i n k y a