Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Fulbati Nag W/o Late Hardas Nag Aged About 64 Years R/o Village
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1849 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Near, Herohonda Show - Room Main Road, Jamkotpara, Tehsil - Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Fulbati Nag W/o Late Hardas Nag Aged About 64 Years R/o Village - Mainpur, Thana - Benoor, Tehsil Farsgaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Geeta Nag D/o Hardas Nag Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Mainpur, Thana - Benoor, Tehsil Farsgaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deepak Kumar Gandhi S/o Charan Gandhi Aged About 21 Years R/o Aamgaon, Thana - Urandabeda District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kapil Dev Sahu S/o Lachhindar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Mainpur, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner)., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1845 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Dompany Limited Near Herohonda Show-Room ,main Road ,jamkotpara ,tahsil Kondagaon ,district Kondagaon Chattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Lachhoo Ram Dhruw S/o Madda Ram Dhruw Aged About 49 Years R/o Gohda ,thana Benoor ,tahsil Farsgaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Jhunkai Bai Dhruw W/o Shri Lachhoo Ram Aged About 46 Years R/o Gohda ,thana Benoor ,tahsil Farsgaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deepak Kumar Gandhi S/o Charan Gandhi Aged About 21 Years R/o Aamgaon Thana Urandabeda District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver ), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kapil Dev Sahu S/o Lachhidar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Mainpur District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.(Vehicle Owner), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 MAC No. 1893 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Near, Herohonda Show-Room Main Road, Jamkotpara, Tehsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus Tehsil District Farsagaon, Thana Benoor,
Legal Reasoning
1 - Mangtu Ram Dugga S/o Ghasiya Ram Dugga, Aged About 53 Years Resident Gohda, Kondagaon Chhattisgarh...........Claimant, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Bilo Bai W/o Mangtu Ram Dugga, Aged About 53 Years Resident Gohda, Thana Benoor, Tehsil Farsagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh...........Claimant, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deepak Kumar Gandhi S/o Charan Gandhi, Aged About 21 Years Resident Aamgaon, Thana Urandabeda District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.............Vehicle Driver, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kapil Dev Sahu S/o Lachhindar Sahu, Aged About 35 Years Resident Village Mainpur, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.........Vehicle Owner, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1842 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Near Herohonda Show- Room Main Road, Jamkotpara, Tehsil- Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Mandhar Poyam S/o Jairam Poyam Aged About 44 Years R/o Harijanpara Gohda, Thana- Benoor, Tehsil Farsgaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Satai Poyam W/o Mandhar Poyam Aged About 40 Years R/o Harijanpara Gohda, Thana- Benoor, Tehsil Farsgaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Nandani Poyam D/o Shriram Poyam Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Grandfather Mandhar Poyam S/o Jairam Poyam, R/o Harijanpara Gohda, Thana- Benoor, Tehsil Farsgaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deepak Kumar Gandhi S/o Charan Gandhi Aged About 21 Years R/o Aamgaon, Thana Urandabeda District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh....................Vehicle Driver, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kapil Dev Sahu S/o Lachhindar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Mainpur, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh..................Vehicle Owner, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate 3 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/07/2025 1. These appeals, MAC No. 1849/2018, 1842/2018, 1845/2018, and 1893/2018, arise from a common factual background and raise an identical question of
Decision
law. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. All the appeals have been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company, assailing the judgment and award dated 25.06.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a series of claim petitions arising out of a single vehicular accident that occurred on 15.05.2017. In that accident, a Bolero Zip vehicle bearing registration number CG-27-A-7488, while being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with a stationary truck bearing registration number MP-17-HH-3292. As a result of the impact, ten passengers traveling in the Bolero Zip sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Multiple claim petitions were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, which were adjudicated and decided by a common award. The Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence, held that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely negligent and that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. It was also observed that the vehicle was covered under a "private car package policy" at the time of the accident. The deceased passengers were found to be traveling for a pilgrimage, and there was no evidence to suggest that the vehicle had been hired for commercial purposes or that the deceased had paid any fare. Consequently, the Tribunal fastened liability on the insurance company to pay compensation. Aggrieved by this finding, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeals, primarily seeking exoneration from liability on the ground of alleged breach of policy conditions. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has erred both in law and on facts in 4 fastening the liability upon the insurer to satisfy the award in the claim cases arising out of the accident dated 15.05.2017. It is submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the material evidence on record which clearly indicated that the offending vehicle, a Bolero Zip bearing registration number CG-27-A-7488, was being plied in blatant contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is contended that the vehicle in question was insured under a “Private Car Package Policy”, which expressly prohibits the use of the vehicle for any commercial purpose or for hire or reward. The insurance policy only covers the private use of the vehicle and limits the liability of the insurer in cases where the vehicle is used for any unauthorized or commercial purposes. However, in the present case, it has come on record that the vehicle was being used to transport as many as 13–14 passengers at the time of the accident, far exceeding its registered seating capacity of 9 persons. Such overloading, in itself, amounts to a serious breach of policy terms. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company submits that the vehicle was being used for a pilgrimage journey, and there is sufficient ground to infer that the passengers were not family members or gratuitous invitees, but were in fact being carried for hire or reward, thereby violating the policy terms. The inference is further strengthened by the testimonies and circumstances indicating that the passengers had contributed towards the cost of the trip or had hired the vehicle for the pilgrimage. Such use of the vehicle amounts to commercial exploitation, which is specifically excluded under the Private Car Package Policy. 4. The appellant further submits that while the Tribunal has held that there was no material on record to establish that the passengers had paid any fare, the burden of proof on such technical issues should not be so onerous upon the insurer when the surrounding circumstances reasonably indicate commercial use. The claimants failed to produce any document or witness to show that 5 the passengers were relatives or had lawful authority to travel in the vehicle without consideration. In such a situation, the Tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant further relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manuara Khatun & Ors. vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 1204, wherein it has been held that when a vehicle insured under a private policy is used for commercial purposes or is carrying gratuitous passengers, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. In that case, the Supreme Court allowed recovery rights to the insurer, holding that carrying unauthorized persons or using the vehicle for hire constitutes a fundamental breach of policy conditions. The appellant also places reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in MAC No. 2343/2015, where on similar facts, the Court exonerated the insurance company from liability on the ground that the vehicle was used in violation of the terms of the private insurance policy. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal ignored the well-settled principle of law that where a fundamental breach of the insurance policy is proved, particularly relating to the use of the vehicle for hire, the insurer cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation. The Tribunal has erroneously held that the passengers were third parties covered under the policy without considering the fact that the number of passengers and the purpose of travel were both outside the scope of the policy coverage. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and award dated 25.06.2018 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal be set aside to the extent that it fastens liability upon the insurance company. In the alternative, and without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the appellant be granted recovery rights against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, in line with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun 6 (supra), to recover the awarded compensation from the insured after satisfying the same to the claimants. 5. Mr. Arvind Prasad, learned counsel for the respective claimants submits that the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are without merit, as the Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened liability on the insurer after due appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that there is no proof that the offending vehicle was being used for hire or reward, nor is there any evidence to suggest that the deceased passengers had paid any fare. The vehicle was covered under a valid "private car package policy," which included third-party risk, and the deceased were gratuitous passengers traveling for a pilgrimage. The Insurance Company failed to establish any fundamental breach of policy conditions, and mere allegations of overloading or commercial use are unsupported by credible evidence. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held the insurer liable, and no interference is warranted with the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 7. The core question for consideration is whether the offending vehicle was being used in contravention of the terms of the insurance policy, thereby absolving the insurance company of its liability to pay compensation. 8. On perusal of the entire record, including the depositions of witnesses, it emerges that the insurance company has failed to substantiate its claim that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. No cogent evidence has been brought on record to prove that the deceased passengers had paid any fare or that the vehicle was taken on hire. The appellant insurance company examined one Shiv Subramaniam Iyer, Assistant Manager of Oriental Insurance Company, as a witness. However, during his cross- examination by the owner and driver, nothing material could be elicited to establish that the vehicle was being used in violation of the policy terms. On the contrary, the claimants examined several eyewitnesses and family 7 members of the deceased, such as AW-1 Manhar Payam, AW-2 Kunkray, and AW-5 Umesh Kumar Gond (an injured eyewitness), who uniformly deposed that the vehicle was not hired and that the passengers were traveling together for a pilgrimage. There is no indication from the evidence that any fare was collected from the deceased passengers. The vehicle in question was insured under a valid private car package policy, which included coverage for third-party risks. The deceased passengers, not being the owners or employees, were third parties vis-à-vis the policy, and their risk was duly covered. 9. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun (supra) is misplaced. In that case, the Court found that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger not covered under the policy, and accordingly, permitted recovery from the insured. However, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the present case, there is no finding or evidence that the passengers were gratuitous or unauthorized, or that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. Further, the insurance company also sought to rely on the judgment of this Court in MAC No. 2343/2015. However, that decision turned on specific evidence proving that the vehicle was being used for commercial gain, which is absent in the present case. 10. Mere assertion of breach of policy conditions, without any cogent and corroborative evidence, cannot be accepted as sufficient ground to absolve the insurer from liability. It is a settled principle of law that unless the insurer proves willful breach of policy conditions, it cannot escape liability to indemnify third parties. In this case, the Tribunal has rightly held that there was no violation of policy terms established, and that the deceased, being third-party occupants, were covered under the policy. 11. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. The appreciation of evidence has been proper and in 8 accordance with settled principles of law. The impugned award does not suffer from any legal or factual error warranting interference in appeal. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, all the appeals, i.e., MAC Nos. 1849/2018, 1842/2018, 1845/2018, and 1893/2018, are dismissed as being devoid of merit. The judgment and award dated 25.06.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are hereby affirmed. No order as to costs. Shayna Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE