Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.07.26 18:49:26 +0530 2025:CGHC:25008 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1413 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Near Jankar Tolkies Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. Through Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Division Office Rama Trade Center Opposite Rajiv Plaza Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ..........Insurer, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Kamli Podiyam W/o W/o Late Hando Podiyam Aged About 30 Years R/o Patelpara Metapal Post Metapal, Tehsil Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ............Claimant., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
2 - Santosh Jaiswal S/o S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Metapal, Bazarpara, P. S. Katekalyan District South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ...........Owner/driver., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 - Babloo S/o S/o Lakheshwar Aged About 40 Years R/o Chindgarh P. S. Chindgarh, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. .............Registered Owner., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 4 - Hardayal Rangwani S/o S/o Shri Hem Nanda Rangwani Aged About 42 Years R/o Housinghboard Colony Aghnpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ...........Registered Owner., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant For Respondents No.2 and 3 : : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Shri Kunal Das, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 17/06/2025 Order on Board 1. The insurance company has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 3.5.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada in Claim Case No.18 of 2016, by which liability has been fastened upon the insurance company to pay the compensation. 2. Case, in short, is that on 6.1.2016, Hando Podiyam (deceased) was travelling in a Commander Jeep bearing registration No.CG 18 D 0143 and was going to weekly market of Dantewada along with other villagers/passengers. When they reached near the bridge at Model School Balud, driver of the Commander Jeep drove the Jeep in rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle coming from opposite direction and caused an accident, as a result of which, the deceased, who was sitting in the said Commander Jeep sustained grievous injury. He was taken to District Hospital Dantewada, but, ultimately, he died on 7.1.2016 during treatment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the entire liability has been fastened upon the insurance company whereas it is a case in which the deceased was travelling in a vehicle, as such the deceased cannot be considered to be a third party. Since extra premium of Rs.50 3 has been paid for per occupant, as such, at the most, the insurance company is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 as per the premium paid to the extent of Rs.50 per occupant. However, this has not been considered by the tribunal and the tribunal has come to a conclusion that the insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation. Learned counsel placed reliance on National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan and another, (2013) 1 SCC 731. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, i.e., owner and driver submits that the Tribunal has rightly passed the award, as such the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal with due care. 6. In National Insurance Company Limited case (supra), it is observed by the Supreme Court as under: “16. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V., (2008) 7 SCC 428, a two-Judge Bench, while dealing with the issue whether a pillion rider on a scooter would be a third party within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act, after referring to a number of authorities, stated thus: (SCC pp. 433 & 435, paras 22 & 25) 4 “22. The contract of insurance did not cover the owner of the vehicle, certainly not the pillion rider. The deceased was travelling as a passenger, stricto sensu may not be as a gratuitous passenger as in a given case she may not (sic) be a member of the family, a friend or other relative. In the sense of the term which is used in common parlance, she might not be even a passenger. In view of the terms of the contract of insurance, however, she would not be covered thereby. * * * 25. The law which emerges from the said decisions, is: (i) the liability of the insurance company in a case of this nature is not extended to a pillion rider of the motor vehicle unless the requisite amount of premium is paid for covering his/her risk; (ii) the legal obligation arising under Section 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicle or the pillion rider; (iii) the pillion rider in a two-wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when the accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of the driver of another vehicle.” 5 18. ….. “25. Before this Court, however, the nature of policies which came up for consideration were Act policies. This Court did not deal with a package policy. If the Tariff Advisory Committee seeks to enforce its decision in regard to coverage of third-party risk which would include all persons including occupants of the vehicle and the insurer having entered into a contract of insurance in relation thereto, we are of the opinion that the matter may require a deeper scrutiny.” 7. From perusal of the record, it seems that extra premium has been paid. The deceased was an occupant of the vehicle, as such there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company that the deceased cannot be a third party. At the most, the claimant is entitled to get the amount for which the premium has been paid which comes to Rs.1,00,000. Liability for the rest of the amount of compensation is required to be fastened upon the owner and driver. 8. The matter relates to a remote district, namely, Dantewada. The claimant, who is the widow of late Hando Podiyam, aged about 30 years, resides in a remote village, namely, Patelpara Metapal of District South Bastar Dantewada. From the claim 6 petition, it seems that the claimant is a villager and she is not having any source of income after the death of the deceased as he was the sole bread earner for both of them, as such, this Court considers it fit to direct the appellant/insurance company to pay the entire compensation awarded by the tribunal and thereafter to recover the same from the owner and driver. Moreover, the appeal pertains to the year 2018 and the death of the deceased took place due to the accident on 7.1.2016, as such looking to all the aspects of the matter, the insurance company is directed to pay the entire compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the owner and driver. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is allowed in part. Gopal Singh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE