Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. 1
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:29644 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 689 of 2019 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301-302, Corporate House, 169 RNT Marg, Opposite Jhabua, Tower, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. --- Appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Kuleshar Bai W/o Late Jawahar Lal Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o Tor, Post Barbanda P.S. Dharsinwa, Disrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.......… (Note Ku. Durga Deleted From The Cause-Title Before Tribunal As She Died During Pendency Of Claim Case, Therefore Not Impleaded Party) (Claimants) 2 - Sumitra Bai W/o Late Poshan Lal Verma R/o Tor Post Barbanda, P.S. Dharsinwa, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.........(Owner) --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 619 of 2019 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301-302, Corporate House, 169 RNT Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore Madhya Pradesh. ---Appellant (s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.15 10:26:39 +0530 Versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Kuleshar Bai W/o Late Jawahar Lal Verma Aged About 44 Years R/o Tor, Post Barbanda, P.S. Dharsinwa, District - Raipur -2- Chhattisgarh. .......… (Note Ku. Durga Deleted From The Cause Title Before Tribunal As She Died During Pendency Of Claim Case, Therefore Not Impleaded Party) ----- (Claimants) 2 - Sumitra Bai W/o Late Poshan Lal Verma R/o Tor, Post Barbanda, P.S. Dharsinwa, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ----(Owner) --- Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : None appears though served _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 01/07/2025 Judgment On Board 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. MAC No.689 of 2019 is filed by the appellant Insurance Company arising out of the award dated 30.11.2018 passed by learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.15 of 2008 arising out of death of Jawahar Lal Verma (husband of respondent No.1/claimant) and MAC No.619 of 2019 is filed by the appellant Insurance Company arising out of the award dated 30.11.2018 passed by learned Fifth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.171 of 2011 arising out of death of Jitendra Verma (son of respondent No.1/claimant). 3. As both the appeals arise out of the same accident both the appeals are being decided by this common order. 4. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondent -3- No.1/claimant filed two separate claims applications under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 before learned Fifth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, one arising out of death of her husband Jawahar Lal Verma and another arising out of death of her son Jitendra Verma pleading therein that on 09/11/2007 at around 11.00 pm when Jawahar Lal Verma along with his two sons Poshan Lal Verma and Jitendra Verma while going from village- Tor to Saddu on motorcycle no. CG- C4-CU/1476 at normal speed, the motorcycle slipped and all three riders fell down. At the same time another unknown vehicle dashed them and fled away, due to which all three persons died because of the fatal injuries sustained by them. At the time of the accident, deceased Jawahar Lal Verma was a healthy person of 43 years and deceased Jitendra Verma was a young man of 20 years. Deceased - Jahawar Lal Verma was working as a driver and was earning Rs.40,000/- annually, and deceased Jitendra Verma was running a grocery shop, was earning Rs.40,000/- annually. As a result of the said accident, claimant has suffered irreparable loss. Therefore, claimant- Kuleshwar Bai has prayed for compensation of Rs.4,97,000/- due to death of her husband Jawahar Lal Verma and Rs.9,60,000/- due to death of her son Jitendra Verma. 5. Non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company has filed its written statement opposing both the claim applications, pleading that, there were 3 people riding on a two-wheeler, and an unknown vehicle crushed all three. Carrying more people than the seating capacity of the vehicle is a violation of the Motor Vehicle Act. Since the involvement of an unknown vehicle has been stated in the alleged accident, the claim -4- application against non-applicant No.2 is not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 live in the same house. Non-applicant No. 1 is said to be the wife of the vehicle owner, thus she is the daughter-in-law of the applicant. Deceased Jawaharlal is father of the vehicle owner and deceased Jitendra is brother of the vehicle owner. In case of death of the owner, the claim against non-applicant No. 1 cannot be filed and the claim filed against non-applicant No. 2 will not be maintainable. No separate premium has been paid by the insurance company for the rider or pillion rider and neither a specific contract was made in this regard. The vehicle has been used illegally. The so called driver of the vehicle did not have a valid, effective and competent license on the date of the accident to drive the vehicle. In the above circumstances, the owner of the vehicle and his heirs are responsible for all the consequences, the applicant's claim against this non-applicant No.2 is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant in MAC No.689 of 2019 submits that admittedly on the date of accident three persons were travelling on motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-CU/1476 which was being driven by Poshan. In the accident, all three persons/rider of motorcycle succumbed to motorcycle accidental injuries. Widow of Jawahar Lal Verma filed claim case bearing No.15/2008 under provision of Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.4,97,000/- against death of Late Jawahar Lal Verma. Against death of Jitendra Verma, one of other occupant of same motorcycle, claim application bearing No.171 of 2011 was filed by his mother and sister, however, subsequently, name of claimant No. 2 sister of Jitendra has been -5- deleted from array of cause title of the claim application. He submits that Claims Tribunal considering that appellant- insurance company has issued package policy of the offending motorcycle, allowed the application. Even if the finding recorded by Claims Tribunal is to be accepted as it is, then risk of only two persons will be covered one driver and another pillion. Risk of two pillions cannot be covered under policy as the seating capacity of motorcycle is only 2 (driver + 1) .He also submits that claim application filed against the death of Poshan, owner of offending vehicle, was dismissed. Referring to decision in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anjana Shyam and Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 445, it is submitted that even if insurance company is held liable to pay compensation, the insurance company will be liable to pay the compensation with respect to death of only one person and can satisfy the claim with respect to award of compensation in only one claim case. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent- claimant though opposes submission of learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company, however, he does not dispute submission of learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of accident, three persons were travelling on one motorcycle bearing No C.G-04-CU/1476 when it met with an accident and all three riders of motorcycle succumbed to motor accidental injuries. He also does not dispute the fact that claim application against death of Poshan registered owner of vehicle was also filed, however it came to be dismissed. He further submits that as the motorcycle on which deceased Jawahar and Jitendra were travelling as pillions and succumbed to motor accidental injuries, on -6- the date of accident offending vehicle motorcycle was insured with appellant-insurance company and therefore learned Tribunal has rightly held liable the insurance company to satisfy the amount of compensation as awarded by the impugned award. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused records of Claim Case No. 15 of 2008 as well record of Claim Case No.171 of 2011. 9. It is undisputed fact that on the date of accident three persons were travelling on motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 04-CU-1746. All three persons succumbed to motorcycle accidental injuries. Claim application was filed by the claimants against death of Jawahar and Jitendra under provision of Section 163-A of Act of 1988. Certificate of registration of motorcycle is available on record. Name of registered owner is mentioned as Poshan Lal Verma son of Jawahar Lal Verma . Seating capacity is mentioned as 2 (two), meaning thereby that along with driver, one pillion. Copy of insurance policy is filed by non- applicant/ insurance company as Ex.D-1 which is two wheeler package policy. It is not disputed by learned counsel for insurance company that under package policy, risk of one of pillion rider is covered and therefore considering the facts of case that at the time of accident two pillions were travelling along with driver it is obligation on the part of insurance company to satisfy the award up to risk covered under the policy of one pillion. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjana Shyam (supra) has observed that in case more persons than the seating capacity of a particular vehicle are travelling, it is for insurance -7- company to satisfy the award of the higher value. 10. In the aforementioned facts of case, as the insurance company is liable to satisfy amount of compensation with respect to one claim, I find it appropriate to dismiss the appeal bearing No.619/2019 arising out of Claim Case No.171 of 2011 and hold that insurance company is liable to satisfy the award against death of Jitendra Verma. 11. However, taking note of the aforementioned facts of case and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anjana Shyam (supra), MAC No.689/2019 under which compensation awarded in Claim Case No.15 of 2008 against death of Jawahar Lal Verma is partly allowed. Appellant- Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to satisfy the amount of compensation in Claim Case No.15/2008 and the liability is shifted upon owner of offending vehicle. 12. Appellant/ insurance company will be at liberty to recover amount of compensation paid in Claim Case No.15 of 2008 from owner of offending vehicle in accordance with law. 13. For the foregoing discussions and finding, both the appeals are
Decision
disposed off. Sd/-- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen