Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28229 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 868 of 2019 1. United India Insurance Company Limited Through Division Manager (Branch No. 1) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Kachari Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory United India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1. Bodhan Dhruv S/o Late Bharatlal Dhruv Aged About 46 Years R/o Bartanara Post Office And Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., 2. Poornima Dhruv W/o Bodhan Dhruv Aged About 44 Years R/o Bartanara Post Office And Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), 3. Sunil S/o Tikesh Kumar Dewangan R/o Bartanara, Post Office And Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur (CG). (Driver), 4. Tikesh Kumar S/o Late Ram Ratan Dewangan R/o Bartanara Post Office And Police Station Dharsiwan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner). ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
9. There is no dispute that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured by the appellant Insurance Company. In the Schedule of Premium of the policy (Ex.D-1) it is mentioned that insurer has paid premium for compulsory personal accident coverage for owner-driver of Rs.100/- and legal liability to paid driver under IMT 18 of Rs.100/-. Premium for any other person / cleaner has not been paid. As held by the Claims Tribunal based on appreciation of evidence that deceased was travelling in the capacity of Cleaner employed by the owner of offending vehicle, who met with accident and succumbed to the motor accidental injuries. The claimants are parents of the deceased. 10. In case of Shivraj (supra) where a coolie travelling in the tractor-trolley met with accident and suffered injuries, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue with respect to issuance of a direction to insurance company to pay the amount of compensation with liberty to recover the same from 6 owner and driver of offending vehicle and observed thus:- “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 claimant (appellant) with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2018 5 SCC 656, Rani vs. National insurance Co.Ltd. And including Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Sing. 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 same from the tractor owner, Respondent 1.” 11. Considering the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the facts of present case that issuance of insurance policy with respect to offending vehicle and its validity on the date of accident is not in dispute, I do not fin any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 12. Accordingly, the appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI roshan/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Arguments
: Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 &2 : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.2 & 3: None. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 26/6/2025 1. Appellant Insurance Company has filed this miscellaneous appeal for setting aside of ‘pay and recover’ direction issued by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide its award dated 23.1.2019 in Claim Case No.144/2018 even after exonerating insurance company from its liability to indemnify the insured. 2. Respondent No.1 & 2/claimants submitted an application before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,97,000/- for the death of Santu alias Santulal in a motor vehicular accident occurred on 14.8.2017when the vehicle in which Santu was travelling was dashed by vehicle bearing registration mark CG04-ZD-4143, driven rashly and negligently by its driver. 3. Application filed by claimant-injured under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) was resisted by non-applicants Nos.1 & 2 on the ground that the offending vehicle was not driven rashly and negligently but the vehicle in which deceased was travelling was rashly driven. Non-applicant No.3 also resisted the claim of claimants by filing its reply and pleading that offending vehicle was being used in violation of the conditions of the policy and, therefore, insurance company, in any case, is not liable to 3 indemnify the insured. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal after analyzing the evidence brought on record by the respective parties, allowed the application of claimants in part, awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a., and while exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability to indemnify the insured owner, held the owner and driver liable for payment of compensation amount, but at the same time Insurance Company was directed to make the payment of compensation amount first to the claimants and thereafter to recover it from the driver and owner. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that this appeal is filed solely on the ground that the Claims Tribunal though exonerated the insurance company but directed to first pay the entire amount of compensation awarded to claimants and then to recover the same from owner and driver of offending vehicle, which is erroneous in the facts of the case. He contended that offending vehicle is a goods carrying vehicle and at the time of accident deceased was sitting beside the driver. In the insurance policy issued by appellant, the risk of owner-driver and paid driver is only covered and risk of other persons or employee is not covered. The deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as cleaner whose risk was not covered under the policy and therefore, even the direction 4 to pay and recover could not have been issued. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants vehemently opposes the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and submits that indisputably the offending vehicle in which deceased was travelling and met with accident, was insured by appellant Insurance Company. Death of deceased due to motor accidental injuries while travelling in the vehicle insured by appellant is not in dispute. Compensation claimed is under the benevolent piece of legislation wherein interest of the claimant/injured is also to be protected. The Claims Tribunal taking note of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrut Paul vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. & ors reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 has issued the direction to appellant Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation and then to recover the same from owner and driver of offending vehicle. He next contended that the direction issued by the Claims Tribunal to the appellant cannot be said to be erroneous. He further submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shivaraj vs Rajendra and another, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 432, while considering its earlier decisions has issued direction to pay and recover in the case where a coolie travelling in the tractor-trolley met with accident and suffered injuries. 5 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of claim case including impugned award. 8. Short question involved in the present case is whether the Claims Tribunal after exonerating insurance company could have issued direction to Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation and then to recover the same from owner and driver of offending vehicle?