Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.25 17:10:25 +0530 2025:CGHC:49207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 267 of 2021 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Office Near Railway Station Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Insurer Of Mahendra Tractor No. C G- 07 N 6627 (Insurence Policy No. 192502/31/2013/6381, Policy Period 17-08-12 To 16-08-13) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Parmanand Sahu S/o Roopram Aged About 42 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Heerapur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh 2. Jitendra Kumar S/o Parmanand Sahu Aged About 21 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Heerapur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh 3. Ku. Chhabi D/o Parmand Sahu Aged About 19 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Heerapur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh 4. Kuleshwar Prasad S/o Parmanand Sahu Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Respondent No. 1 Parmanand Sahu Caste Teli, R/o Village Heerapur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh 5. Rahul Kumar S/o Parmanand Sahu Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Respondent No. 1 Parmanand Sahu Caste Teli, R/o Village Heerapur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh 6. Jogilal Sahu S/o Hamit Lal Sahu Caste Teli, R/o Mudkhusra, Police Station, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Tractor No. C G- 07 N 6626 And Trolley No. C G- 07 N 6627) 7. Hamit Lal Sahu S/o Dhiraji Sahu Caste Teli, R/o Mudkhusra, Police Station, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh (Ower Ofdriver Of Tractor No.Of Tractor No. C G- 07 N 6626 And Trolley No. C G- 07 N 6627) ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant/Insurance company : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 For Respondents No. 6 and 7 : None, though served. : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25. 09.2025 1. The appellant/Insurance company has filed this appeal under the 2 provisions of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act challenging the award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod in Claim Case No. 36/2013 dated 21.01.2021, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate appearing for the appellant/Insurance company would submit that on 26.05.2013 the deceased Smt. Parwati Bai Sahu was returning from village Machoud in a Mahindra Tractor & Trolley along with other 25 - 30 persons. He would further submit that the Tractor bearing registration No. CG 07 N 6626 and Trolley bearing registration No. CG 07 N 6627 was hit by unknown Truck at about 1.30 am, resultantly, deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to death. Mr. Agrawal would further submit that as the deceased was traveling in a Tractor Trolley as gratuitous passenger, therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed error of law while fastening liability with the Insurance company. He would also submit that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied provisions of Rule 97 of C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. He would contend that the award passed by the learned Tribunal may be set-aside. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate appearing for the claimants would oppose. He would submit that on the fateful date the Tractor & Trolley was being used for agriculture purpose and it was dashed by unknown Truck. He would also submit that the deceased alone was traveling as she was engaged by the owner of the Tractor to load and unload the compost. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper award and instant appeal deserves to be 3 dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Perusal of the document Ex. P/3 would reveal that the deceased along with other 30 persons were returning to their village from village Machoud after attending a marriage ceremony and near Paragaon, the said Tractor & Trolley was dashed by unknown Truck. The Ex. P/3 is Naksha Panchayatnama prepared by Police and there is no reason to disbelieve the said document. 6. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The deceased was traveling in the Tractor Trolley, whereas, according to the Insurance policy third party and driver were only covered. In that way of the matter, the Insurance company is not responsible to cover risk of the deceased who was traveling in Tractor Trolley. 7. Now, the question is, whether the principle of pay and recover would apply? 8. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Anu Bhanvara and others v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and others, (2020) 20 SCC 632 is required to be noticed herein profitably in which the Supreme Court in case of gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle duly insured has dealt with the question whether payment of compensation is to be made jointly by owner and driver of vehicle, or by insurer, which could thereafter be recovered by insurer from owner and driver, and it has been held as under: - The next question is as to which of the “9. respondents, that is, the owner and driver, or the insurer of the vehicle, would be liable for payment of such compensation. As regard the liability for 4 payment of compensation, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the vehicle was admittedly insured with Respondent 1 insurance company, the principle of pay and recover would be invoked even in case of a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. The insurance company should thus be made liable for the payment of compensation to the appellants and in turn they would have the right to realise/recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the following decisions of this Court, namely, Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 796 , Puttappa v. Rama Naik, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3496; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 399; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Devi, 2010 SCC OnLine SC 49; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 517; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya, (2002) 2 SCC 278 and Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar,(1998) 3 SCC 744. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has contended that since the claimants were gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle, in which case the liability for payment of compensation for death or bodily injury to the passengers of such goods vehicle would not be covered, hence the principle of pay and recover would not apply. It has thus been contended that the order of the High Court is perfectly justified in law and calls for no interference by this Court. In support of her submission, the learned counsel has relied on following decisions, namely, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2003) 2 SCC 223 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaushalaya Devi, (2008) 8 SCC 246; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani, (2009) 2 SCC 75; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prema Devi, (2008) 5 SCC 403; Bharati AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Aandi, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13295 and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lal Singh, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7508. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the various decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties. The insurance of the vehicle, though as a goods 5 vehicle, is not disputed by the parties. The claimants in the present case are young children who have suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the principle of “pay and recover” should be directed to be invoked in the present case.” 9. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Supreme Court in Anu Bhanvara (supra) has clearly held that the principle of “pay and recover” is required to be invoked in case of gratuitous passengers also in a goods vehicle. 10. Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate has informed that the Insurance company has already deposited the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- out of total sum of compensation Rs. 5,00,000/-; therefore, the Insurance company shall deposit the remaining part of the compensation within a period of 60 days with interest. Thereafter, the Insurance company would be at liberty to recover it from driver and owner of the Tractor and Trolley. 11. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant