Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Pradeep Kumar Sahu S/o Sh. Shankar Lal Sahu Aged About 48 Years
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR MAC No. 1388 of 2018 Reserved on 07.07.2025 Delivered on 14/08/2025 1 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Branch Office, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Represented Through Its Asstt. Manger, T. P. Hub, Divisional Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ............Res. No. 2., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Pradeep Kumar Sahu S/o Sh. Shankar Lal Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Lenjwara, P. S. Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Present Add. Village Urla, P. S. Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
2 - Smt. Pyari Bai W/o W/o Pradeep Kumar Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Lenjwara, P. S. Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Present Add. Village Urla, P. S. Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .............Claimants., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ajay Kumar Ojha D/o S/o Triloknath Ojha R/o Banjari Nagar, Rawabhata, P. S. Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .............Owner., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of 2 For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. L. Singhroul, Advocate Mr. R. N. Pusty, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1 This is the insurer’s appeal against the award dated 17.05.2018 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri District Jashpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.230/2015 whereby a compensation of Rs.4,62,834/- with interest @ 06% per annum has been awarded in favour of the Claimants. 2 The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on 23rd June 2014, at Village Patharideh, at a location known as Koyla Depot, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, an unfortunate incident occurred involving the deceased, Roshan Sahu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased” for brevity). The deceased was operating a two- wheeler motorcycle bearing registration number CG 04 KU 8901, which allegedly collided with a stationary pole resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. The deceased succumbed to these injuries on the spot. The said motorcycle was insured with the appellant, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”), and the policy was issued in the name of Respondent No. 3, Mr. Ajay Kumar Ojha, who was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. 3 Following the death of the deceased, the claimants, being the 3 parents of the deceased, filed an application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of their son. The claim petition prayed for a compensation amount of Rs. 22,50,000/- on account of the loss sustained by the claimants due to the untimely demise of the deceased. Upon issuance of notice, the owner of the vehicle, Respondent No. 3, filed his written statement, wherein he contended that the deceased had unlawfully taken possession of the motorcycle without permission, i.e., the vehicle was stolen by the deceased on the date of the accident. According to him, the accident took place while the deceased was fleeing with the stolen vehicle. The owner admitted the insurance coverage of the vehicle with the appellant but maintained that any liability arising out of the accident was that of the insurer alone. 4 The appellant/insurance company also contested the claim, filing a written statement taking several defenses. These included denial of liability on the ground that the policy did not cover the risk arising from the stolen vehicle as the deceased was not an authorized driver. Further, the appellant raised the plea of breach of policy conditions on account of non-payment of premium in relation to the risk alleged to have occurred. The appellant denied any master-servant relationship between the owner of the vehicle and the deceased, thereby negating any vicarious liability. Additionally, the appellant contended that the deceased did not 4 possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, which constituted a breach of the insurance policy terms and conditions. On these grounds, the appellant sought to be exonerated from any liability in respect of the claim. 5 After due consideration of pleadings, evidence on record, and hearing the submissions of all parties, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed the impugned Award dated 17th May 2018 in Claim Case No. 230/2015. The Tribunal assessed the compensation amount at Rs. 4,62,834/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, to be paid jointly and severally by the appellant insurer and the owner and driver of the vehicle. A certified copy of the said Award has been annexed to the memo of appeal. The appellant has also deposited the mandatory amount as per law, receipt of which is annexed herewith as Annexure A/1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Award, the appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned Award on various grounds, contending that the same is bad in law and liable to be set aside for the reasons stated above. Hence this appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 6 The learned Claims Tribunal, having carefully considered and duly appreciated the pleadings, evidence, and arguments advanced by the parties, has rendered the impugned judgment after due application of mind to the facts and law involved in the matter. 7 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company 5 submits that the impugned Award is contrary to the facts, evidence, and settled law, and the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal are perverse and liable to be set aside. The Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant Insurance Company failed to establish its defence, despite the admitted fact that the deceased was driving the insured vehicle without the owner’s consent and was neither employed nor authorized by the owner. In the absence of any employer-employee relationship, no liability can be fastened on the owner, and consequently, no indemnity liability can arise against the insurer. Moreover, the deceased committed a felony by stealing the vehicle, making him a tortfeasor, and therefore, the owner and insurer cannot be held liable for his death. The deceased’s unauthorized use of the vehicle does not attract statutory liability on the insurer, especially when no premium was paid to cover such risk. Further, the compensation awarded is excessive and liable to be suitably reduced. In light of these facts and legal principles, the appellant insurer’s liability is wholly erroneous and the Award is liable to be set aside. 8 Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents/Claimants supported the impugned award and submitted that the award in question is based on the proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence which does not call for any interference. 9 Respondent 3 herein remained ex-parte and did not submit any 6 written statement or evidence in support of their case. 10 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 11 Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is clear that the vehicle involved in the accident was duly insured with the appellant on the date of the incident. The Tribunal has correctly assessed the compensation payable and, in the absence of any cogent proof by the appellant regarding the statutory liability on the insurer, especially when premium was paid to cover such risk no willful breach of policy terms by the insured was proved, the finding of liability against the insurance company is just and proper. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal warranting interference. 12 The appeal is dismissed. The award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is affirmed. The Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award in accordance with law, if not already done. 13 Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Gopal Singh/Saxena Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge