Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Gopchand S/o Dudhnath Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o - Vill
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.18 13:26:13 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:33072 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 60 of 2023 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Bhawani Patna, 1st Floor, Daily Market, Munisipal Building, Bhawani Patna (Odisha) Through Its Authorised Authority, Manager, T P Hub, IInd Floor, Rama Trade Center, Above Axis Bank, Opp.- Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant Versus 1 - Gopchand S/o Dudhnath Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o - Vill. - Nawaguda, P.S. - Devbhog, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dildar Khan S/o - Ghasi Khan Aged About 35 Years R/o - Arka Behari Pada, P.S.- Bhawani Patna, District - Kalahandi (Odisha) Hal Mukam-Vill.- Khutgaon, P/S. Devbhog, District - Gariaband, Chhattisgarh (Driver). 3 - Trilochan Pradhan S/o Tankdhar Pradhan (Ganda) R/o - Purnapada, P.S.- Bhawani Patna, District - Kalahandi (Odisha)(Owner) --- Non-applicants CR No. 63 of 2023 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Bhawani Patna Ist Floor, Daily Market, Munisipal Building, Bhawani Patna (Odisha) Through Its Authorised Authority, Manager, T P Hub, IInd Floor, Rama Trade Center, Above Axis Bank, Opp. Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant 2 Versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Kamla Bai W/o - Neelkanth Yadav, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Nawaguda, P.S. Devbhog, District District Gariaband Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dildar Khan, S/o - Ghasi Khan, Aged About 35 Years R/o Arka Behari Pada, P.S. Bhawani Patna, District Kalahandi (Odisha) Hal Mukam - Village, Khutgaon, P/s. Devbhog, District Gariaband Chhattisgarh (Driver) 3 - Trilochan Pradhan, S/o - Tankdhar Pradhan (Ganda), R/o Purnapada, P.S. Bhawani Patna, District Kalahandi (Odisha) (Owner) ... Non-applicants CR No. 66 of 2023 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Bhawani Patna, 1st Floor Daily Market, Munisipal Building, Bhawani Patna (Odisha) Through Its Authorized Authority, Manager, T. P. Hub, II Floor, Ram Trade Center, Above Axis Bank, Opp. Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilapur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---Applicant Versus 1 - Smt. Sarswati Bai, W/o Taturam Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Nawaguda, P.S. Debhog, District Gariaband Chhattisgarh 2 - Dildar Khan S/o Ghasi Khan Aged About 35 Years R/o Arka Behari Pada, P.S. Bhawani Patna, District Kalahandi (Odisha) Hal Mukam Vill. Khutgaon, P/ S Devbhog, District Gariaband Chhattisgarh (Driver) 3 - Trilochan Pradhan S/o Tankdhar Pradhan (Ganda), R/o Purnapada, P.S. Bhawani Patna, District Kalahandi (Odisha) (Owner) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) --- Non-applicants For Applicant/Insurance Company For non-applicant No.3/Owner : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate 3 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 15.07.2025 Order on Board 1. Since all these civil revisions arising out of same accident, they have been clubbed together, heard together and decided by this common order. 2. Challenge in these civil revisions is to the award dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case Nos.02/2021, 04/2021 and 03/2021, respectively, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim applications in part of the respective claimants and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company. 3. Brief facts of these civil revisions, in a nutshell, are that, on 18.09.2019, the claimants, namely Gopchand, Smt. Kamla Bai and Smt. Saraswati Bai had gone to Bhawanipatna Hospital for the treatment of one Taturam Yadav. After the treatment, they were returning to village Navaguda, P.S. Devbhog, by Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.OD-08A-8755 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’). On the way, at about 2:00 p.m., near Karchia turning, N.H. 130(C), Devbhog-Dharmgarh route, non-applicant No.2/driver, while driving the Bolero in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Kheer Sindhu, who was on a bicycle and thereafter, the Bolero turned turtle. As a result of the said 4 accident, Taturam Yadav sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. The other occupants, namely Smt. Saraswati Bai, Smt. Kamla Bai and Gopchand, also sustained injuries. 4. On account of the injuries sustained by the claimants namely Gopchand, Smt. Kamla Bai and Smt. Saraswati Bai, filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) claiming compensation under different heads. 5. Non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (driver and owner) filed their written statement, denying the allegations made in the claim petitions. They specifically contended that the offending vehicle was insured with the applicant/Insurance Company and non-applicant No. 2 was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, in case any liability arose, it was the applicant/Insurance Company which would be liable to pay compensation. 6. The applicant/Insurance Company, in its written statement, also denied the claims and the pleadings of the claim petitions. It was specifically contended that the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. 7. On appreciation of the pleadings mentioned in the claim petitions as well as after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal has allowed 5 the claim petitions in part and vide its award dated 16.02.2023, awarded a total compensation of Rs.19,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions till its realization, in favour of the claimants and against non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 and the applicant/Insurance Company, holding them jointly and severally liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant/Insurance submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is bad in law and unsustainable on the face of the record. He submits that the offending vehicle was being plied without a valid and effective permit at the time of the alleged accident. It is submitted that the insured was holding only a Contract Carriage Permit (Omnibus Permit) which was restricted to the State of Odisha, however, the alleged accident took place at Devbhog, District Gariaband, Chhattisgarh, which was outside the territorial limits of the said permit. It has been contended that since the offending vehicle was being used in violation of the permit conditions and in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the applicant/Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation. It has been further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and has mechanically fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company, without considering the fact that the vehicle was plied beyond its permitted area, thereby breaching the contractual obligations of the policy and in such 6 circumstances, the Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated from any liability to pay compensation, and the liability should have been fastened upon the owner of the vehicle alone. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant No.3/owner supported the impugned award and submits that after appreciating the submissions on behalf of the parties, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 11. Considering the matters in its entirety, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.19,000/- as compensation in each of the claimant in all three claim petitions, which looking to the injuries sustained by them, is quite in order. 12. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the records, this Court finds that the learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a well- reasoned and justified finding based on the evidence placed on record. 13. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the respective claimants, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.19,000/- as just and reasonable compensation to each of the claimants, namely Gopchand, Smt. Kamla Bai and Smt. Saraswati Bai. Furthermore, it is proved fact that the offending 7 vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company at the time of the accident, and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. 14. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the well- reasoned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, these civil revisions being CR Nos.60/2023, 63/2023 and 66/2023) filed by the Insurance Company stand dismissed. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant/Insurance Company submits that in another appeal being MAC No.987 of 2023 arising out of same accident, the liberty may be granted to argue the case on the merits of the case. 16. In that view of the matter, it is clarified that this order shall not prejudice the rights of the applicant/Insurance Company to argue MAC No.987 of 2023 on its merits, and the said appeal shall be decided independently without being influenced by this order. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge