[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., ... vs Mr. Chandrashekhar O. Dave And 2 Others on 3 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:1698
9.fa.394.15-J.doc 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2015
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
through Manager at 4th Floor,
MECL Premises Dr. Ambedkar Bhawan,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur. ---APPELLANT
---VERSUS---
1. Mr. Chandrashekhar O. Dave,
Aged Major, Occupation : Hotel Business,
R/o. 1171, Gorewada Road, Gittikhadan,
Nagpur - 12.
2. Smt. Leelabai wd/o. Maroti Sontakke,
Aged 48 years, Occupation : Household.
3. Ku. Meena d/o. Maroti Sontakke,
Aged 24 years, Occupation: Student,
Both 2 & 3 R/o. At Dahegaon, Post Fetri,
Tahsil Kalmeshwar, Distt. Nagpur. ----RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Anita Mategaonkar, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Rutik Gharote, Advocate h/f. Mr. Amit Khare, Advocate for Respondent
No.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 30.01.2026.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 03.02.2026
9.fa.394.15-J.doc 2/7
JUDGMENT
. This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'M.V.Act) by the Insurance Company
against the Judgment and Order/Award dated 05.03.2014 passed
by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short,
M.A.C.T.), Nagpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.100/2008,
awarding compensation of Rs.2,24,000/- with interest at the rate of
6% per annum against the Appellant and the vehicle owner for
accidental death of the son and brother of the Respondent Nos.2
and 3 respectively.
2. The above referred Claim Petition was filed by the
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 with the contention that, on 14.01.2008
while deceased, who was working with the Respondent No.1 on his
Dhaba, was traveling in the four-wheeler - Jeep owned by
Respondent No.1 and insured with the Appellant, succumbed to the
injuries suffered due to rash and negligence driving of the said Jeep
by its driver. They claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
3. The Claim Petition was contested by the Respondent
No.1 and by the Appellant by filing their respective written
statement. They denied the liability. The Respondent No.2
examined herself as a witness and brought on record the necessary
documents. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned
Tribunal passed the impugned Judgment and Award as referred
above.
4. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the
Appellant that, the deceased was an unknown passenger in the
Jeep, which was insured with the Insurance Company and the
insurance policy did not cover the unknown person and, therefore,
Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. She
relied on the decision in United India Insurance Company Vs. Tilak
Singh and Others [2006 ACJ 144].
5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 that, undisputedly, the insurance policy
covered the third party risk and the deceased was in the
employment of the Respondent No.1 - owner of the Jeep and was
covered by the insurance policy. He submitted that, the learned
Trial Court has rightly considered the Claim Petition and no
interference was called for. In support of his contention he relied
on the Judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagdish
Kumar Rathore and Ors. [2000 Supreme (MP) 615].
6. The only challenge raised to the impugned Judgment
and Order is that, the insurance policy of the Jeep did not cover the
unknown passenger. According to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the
deceased was in the employment of the Respondent No.1 on his
Dhaba business and was not an unknown passenger. Whereas, the
same is disputed by the appellant. It is not dispute that, the Jeep
was insured with the Appellant. The insurance policy was brought
on record before the learned Tribunal. In para 7 of the impugned
judgment, the learned Tribunal has observed thus :
"7. It is an undisputed fact that the Respondent no.1
was the owner of Tata Mobile Van no.MH-31-G-4939 and it
was insured with Respondent no.2. Policy certificate filed
on record shows that the Insurance Company accepted
premium for "third party risk" for the period of 24.03.2007
to 23.3.2008."
7. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra),
the offending vehicle i.e. scooter, was insured under 'Act only'
policy which did not contain any endorsement on payment of
additional premium and deceased therein was the pillion rider and
succumbed to the injuries suffered in the motor vehicular accident.
It was held that, the Insurance Company owned no liability towards
the injuries suffered by the deceased, who was the pillion rider, as
the insurance policy did not cover the risk of death or bodily injury
to gratuitous passenger. In the case of New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. (supra), main issue was whether the Insurance Company was
statutorily liable to pay the compensation under Section 147 of the
M.V.Act. By considering the decision in New India Assurance
Company Vs. Satpal Singh and Ors. [(2000) 1 SCC 237], the
Appeals were dismissed. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced
below :
"17. Further the Section 147(2) of the Act covers any
liability incurred in respect of death or bodily injury to
a third party on account of an accident subject to
proviso clauses (a) and (b) of that sub-section.
Omitting clause (b) from our consideration, we may
consider if proviso is attracted in these cases. It is not in
dispute that the liability for accident dated 5-11-1989
was covered by the insurance policy which commenced
on 6-9-1989 and was to remain in force till 5-9-1990.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had come into force on
1st July, 1989, For the aforesaid reason the liability
under the policy in his case shall be governed by the
Act. The proviso which deals with policies commenced
before the promulgation of the Act is not attracted. The
result of the discussion aforesaid is that this Court is of
the view that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable
to pay the compensation alongwith the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3. The view taken by this Court is supported
by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
New India Assurance Company Vs. Satpal Singh and
others, reported in 2000(2) MPHT 340, brought to its
notice after the order was already dictated. Thus there
is no room for any doubt as the Supreme Court in
Paragraph 11 stated as follows:
"Para 11. The result is that under the new Act an
insurance policy covering third party risk is not
required to exclude gratuitous passengers in a vehicle,
no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class. Hence
the decisions rendered under the old Act vis-a-vis
gratuitous passengers are of no avail while considering
the liability of the insurance company in respect of any
accident which occurred or would occur after the New
Act came into force."
18. The result is that all these appeals fail and have
no force and are hereby dismissed. In case, the
claimants have not been paid the amount awarded by
the Tribunal pursuant to any stay order granted by this
Court in each case, the appellant who is jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal against it and respondent Nos. 2 and 3
shall deposit the amount together with interest within
three months from the date of this order."
8. Coming to the case at hand, the above referred
observations of the learned Tribunal made in para 7 of the
impugned Judgment quoted above are based on material on record.
This being so, considering the ratio of the above referred Judgment
cited by the learned Advocate for the Appellant, no interference is
called for in the impugned Judgment and Order. Resultantly, the
appeal fails. Hence, the following order :
i] The appeal stands dismissed.
ii] Record and proceedings be sent back to the
learned Tribunal.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/02/2026 12:55:39
