Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:25928 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1147 of 2019 1 - Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. 1st Floor, Rajeev Plaza, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Through Its Authorized Officer, Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office, Second Floor Simran Tower, Opposite Life Insurance Corporation Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellant 1 - Lekhraj Prajapti S/o Ramsai Prajapati Aged About 30 Years Occupation Privet Gard Aadani Company, R/o Village - Pampanagar, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Suresh Agrawal S/o Surajbhan Agrawal Aged About 47 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Lakhanpur, Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Mazahar Alam R/o Inamul Huq, Cast - Muslim, R/o R.T.I. Colony, Vishrampur, Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Shrivastava, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 19/06/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company challenging the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in its SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 award dated 28.02.2019 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in M.A.C.T. No. 111/2017 whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,79,888/- as amount of compensation to the respondents. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 04.04.2016, when the Respondent No. 1/Lekhraj Prajapati was traveling towards Ramanujnagar from Harpatka on a Trailor bearing registration no. CG 15 AC 4644 and reached near Chindiya Canal, at that time, the driver of the offending Trailor caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered serious injuries, he was taken to hospital for treatment at Ambikapur, he thereafter, was referred to a Hospital at Raipur for treatment. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered bearing Crime No. 81/2016 against the Respondent No. 3 at P.S. Ramanujnagar for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Appellant/Insurance Company. The offending vehicle is a trailor truck. The insurance policy was issued by the appellant covering the risk of the driver, cleaner and the coolie only. The risk of the other persons than those mentioned in the policy is not covered. In support of the aforementioned contention, he referred to the copy of the insurance policy (Ex. D/1). He also contended that the appellant is under obligation to discharge the contractual liability under the policy only. The deceased as per the pleadings made in the claim application is not the driver, cleaner or coolie and was not traveling in the said capacity. The deceased was working as Guard in Adani Power Company Limited and he was returning back from his duty and therefore, the 3 status of the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle. Hence, the risk of gratuitous passenger was not covered. 4. He contended that the Tribunal only considering the fact that the insurance policy was a package policy and the third party is covered under the policy, he was not traveling as a passenger after paying the fare, held that there is no suggesting evidence to show that there was breach of policy conditions. The said finding is erroneous in the facts of the case. He submits that the appeal be allowed and the liability fastened upon the insurance company to satisfy the amount of compensation be set-aside. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramashray Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2003) 10 SCC 664. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 would oppose the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that issuance of insurance policy, covering risk of 4 person is admitted by the Appellant/Insurance Company. The accident occurred during the currency period of the insurance policy and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in passing the impugned award, recording a finding that the deceased was neither owner/driver nor insured and therefore, his status will be of third party and have rightly fastened liability upon the Appellant/Insurance Company to satisfy the amount of compensation. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 & 3 also opposes the submission of the counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company and would submit that the owner has purchased the policy of the vehicle owned by him. The accident occurred during the currency period of the insurance policy, therefore, the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the risk of the deceased, who was occupant of the 4 vehicle is not covered, is not sustainable. It is submitted that as the claim is by only one person, the Appellant/Insurance Company is under an obligation to satisfy the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the claim case. 8. This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the impugned award on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal erroneously fastened the liability upon it overlooking the fact that the claimant met with an accident while traveling on the trailor (goods carriage vehicle) and suffered injuries. 9. Perusal of the record would show that the claimants in the claim application has pleaded that on the date of accident, he was traveling on the trailor bearing registration no. CG 15 AC 4644 which overturned due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. From the aforementioned facts pleaded in the claim application and stated by the claimant AW-1 in his evidence, it is apparent that the claimant suffered injuries while traveling on the offending trailor (goods vehicle). Copy of the insurance policy is also available on record as Ex. P/1. It mentions the licensed passenger carrying capacity to be three, one driver, two cleaner and total seating capacity including driver as four. Under the liability column, it is mentioned under the head of legal liability, Cleaner two number, Coolie two number, paid driver to be one. The claimant was not traveling in the offending vehicle either in the capacity of Coolie or Cleaner or Driver. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramashray Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2003) 10 SCC 664 5 while considering the issue as to whether a Khalasi can be treated as a passenger traveling in Trucker, to fasten liability upon the Insurance Company under the comprehensive policy and held as under:- 10. ….. “If the employee concerned is neither a driver nor conductor nor examiner of tickets, the insured cannot claim that the employee would come under the description of “any person” or “passenger”. If this were permissible, then there would be no need to make special provisions for employees of the insured. The mere mention of the word “cleaner” while describing the seating capacity of the vehicle does not mean that the cleaner was therefore a passenger. Besides, the claim of the deceased employee was adjudicated upon by the Workmen's Compensation Court which could have assumed jurisdiction and passed an order directing compensation only on the basis that the deceased was an employee. This order cannot now be enforced on the basis that the deceased was a passenger.” 12. So a person carried in pursuance of a contract of employment would be a passenger and would be covered as such. The exclusion of this clause in the proviso to Section 147(1)(b) of the present Act bolsters our reasoning that employees other than the three mentioned are not covered by Section 147(1)(b). 13. So a person carried in pursuance of a contract of employment would be a passenger and would be covered as such. The exclusion of this clause in the proviso to Section 147(1)(b) of the present Act bolsters our reasoning that employees other than the three mentioned are not covered by Section 147(1)(b)” 6 11. In the case at hand also, though in the policy, risk under the legal liability of two Cleaner, one Coolie and one paid-driver is covered and therefore, column mentioning licensed passenger carrying capacity 3 would relate to the employees specifically mentioned therein in the policy, like Cleaner, Coolie and Driver. The claimant who is an employee of Adani Company and working there as Guard, as per pleading made in the claim application is not covered under the policy issued by the appellant company. In the above facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company to satisfy the amount of compensation as computed in the impugned award and therefore, it is not sustainable in law and accordingly, set-aside.
Decision
12. In view of the above, the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation would be upon the Respondent No. 2, owner of the offending vehicle. The Appellant/Insurance Company will be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation so paid/deposited pursuant to the impugned award from the Respondent No. 2. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Appellant/insurance Company is allowed to the extent as mentioned above. 14. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge