Branch Manager Iffco- Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Gouri Shankar Mandir Road, District- Raigarh v. 1
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:32662 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 748 of 2019 Branch Manager Iffco- Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Gouri Shankar Mandir Road, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Sunita Bai W/o Late Chamar Sai Aged About 32 Year 2 - Vinita Kumari D/o Late Chamar Sai Aged About 9 Years 3 - Vabli Kumari D/o Late Chamar Sai Aged About 4 Years 6 Month 4 - Lilima Kumari S/o Late Chamar Sai Aged About 2 Years 6 Month 5 - Raj S/o Late Chamar Sai Aged About 1 Years Month 6 - Usha Bai W/o Late Dhan Sai Aged About 55 Years All R/o Village- Tildega, Sugapara, Thana- Pathalgan, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Madhusudhan S/o Madhim Saya Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Joradol Sugapara, Thana-Pathalgaon, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Rajkumar Miri S/o Shyam Lal Miri, R/o Village- Joradol Sugapara, Thana-Pathalgaon, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
that 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 -6- insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, Respondent 1.” 11. In the aforementioned facts of case and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivraj (supra), I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the direction issued by learned Claims Tribunal directing appellant- insurance company to first pay amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same. 12. For the foregoing discussions, appeal filed by Insurance Company is sans merit, it is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. 13. So far as cross-objection filed by respondents No. 7 & 8/non-applicants No. 1&2 challenging quantum of amount of compensation is concerned ground raised by learned counsel for respondents No. 7 & 8 of making wrong deduction of ¼ instead of 1/3 is not sustainable in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that deduction would be ¼ where claimant/dependent are 4 to 6 in number. In the case at hand there are 6 claimants/dependents and therefore learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied deduction of ¼ . Hence, it does not call for any interference. 14. So far as the other submission raised by learned counsel for the respondent/owner driver of assessing income of deceased as Rs.6000/- per month is concerned, date of accident is 02.09.2015. Deceased was aged about 38 years and doing work of labourer. He was maintaining 6 persons from his income and therefore considering the dependents upon deceased and there are every chance for labourer to do overtime and extra work for earning more , I am not inclined to interfere with income of -7- deceased as assessed by Claims Tribunal as Rs.6000/- . 15. For the foregoing discussion, cross-objection filed by respondents No. 7 and 8 /non-applicants No. 1 & 2 (Driver and Owner) of offending vehicle also having no merits. It is to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Arguments
For Appellant (s) behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate : Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate on For Respondent No.1 to 6 : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate For Resp. No. 7 & 8 _______________________________________________________ : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.24 10:21:30 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 14/07/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally at motion stage. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award of compensation awarded by learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal , Gharghoda, Raigarh (CG) vide award dated 16.10.2018 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.35 of 2018. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 6/claimants filed an application under Sections 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 02.09.2015, Chamar Sai was going towards village Kapu to work as labourer, sitting in trolley number CG 13L 9392 attached to tractor number CG 13 L 9390. When the said tractor reached near village Sigrai, PS- Kapu at about 09:00 am, driver of the tractor/non-applicant No.1 drove the tractor in a hurry, at high speed, due to which Chamar Sai sitting in the tractor fell down from the tractor and sustained serious injuries on his body. Insured was taken to Hospital at Pathalgaon for treatment, from there he was taken to Jeevan Jyoti Hospital Ambikapur where he died during course of his treatment. At the time of accident, age of the deceased was 35 years and was earning Rs. 6000/- per month by working as labourer work. The applicants were dependent upon deceased, but due to said demise of Chamar Sai, applicants have been deprived of this income. Applicants -3- have claimed compensation of Rs.17,96,000/- from the non-applicants under various heads. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 by filing their written statement have denied the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that deceased was not travelling on the tractor of non-applicant No.2 and non- applicant No. 1 did not drive the tractor No. CG 13 L 9390 rashly and negligent and no accident has been caused by him. Said vehicle owned by non-applicant No. 2 was insured with non-applicant No.3 and on the date of the accident, non-applicant No. 1 also had a valid license to drive the vehicle. 5. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company in its written statement pleaded that as per the insurance policy, the vehicle owner /non-applicant No. 2 has not paid any additional premium in respect of the labourer or porter employed in the tractor. It is further mentioned that non-applicant No. 1 did not have any valid and effective license to drive the vehicle and the tractor and trolley were being used against the terms and conditions of the policy. 6. 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 Chamar Sai suffered fatal injuries and died. Assessing income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.11,94,000/- held that tractor was plied in breach of policy conditions, however, held that first liability to pay compensation is upon non-applicant No.3 insurance company and -4- reserved the right of non-applicant No.3 to recover the amount so paid from non-applicant No. 1 & 2. . 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits though learned Claims Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from its liability to satisfy the award, however, erroneously issued direction to first pay amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from owner and driver. She contended that deceased at the time of accident was travelling on a tractor trolley and as per pleadings in claim application and evidence it is apparent that, due to rash and negligent driving of tractor by non-applicant No.1, deceased fell down from tractor trolley and came under its wheel. She submits that no premium was paid by owner of offending vehicle for covering risk of passenger. In fact deceased was a gratuitous passenger as there is no seating space in the trolley and therefore also there was breach of policy conditions and hence the direction of pay and recover issued by the Tribunal is erroneous. 8. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6/ claimants would support the impugned award and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal awarded just amount of compensation which does not call for any interference. 9. Learned counsel for respondents no. 7 & 8 / non-applicants No. 1 & 2 (Driver and Owner) though supported the finding of learned Claims Tribunal with regard to direction issued to appellant- insurance company of pay and recover, however, he submits that owner and driver have also filed cross-objection challenging quantum of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal on the ground that income of deceased is assessed on higher side and further that deduction of ¼ applied by the Tribunal is erroneous and it should be 1/3. -5- 10. So far as ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to issuance of direction to first pay amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra & Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 432, wherein, it was observed as under: “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 h 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
Decision
16. In the result MAC No. 748 of 2019 filed by appellant-Insurance Company and Cross Appeal filed by respondents No. 7 & 8 /Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 (Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle) are dismissed. Sd/-- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen