Shubham Kumar Suryavanshi vs Munnalal Suryavanshi
2021 Latest Caselaw 2785 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                       AFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          MAC No. 590 of 2021

                     Order Reserved On : 18/10/2021
                      Order Passed On : 20/10/2021

  1. Shubham Kumar Suryavanshi S/o Munnalal Suryavanshi, Aged About
     25 Years R/o Village Sothi, P.S. Champa, District Janjgir Champa
     Chhattisgarh

  2. Smt. Jhuleshwanri Devi, D/o Munnalal Suryavanshi Aged About 38
     Years W/o Ramayan Suryavanshi, R/o S.B.S. Basti, Korba, P.S. Tahsil
     And District Korba Chhattisgarh

  3. Smt. Lalita Devi D/o Munnalal Suryavanshi Aged About 35 Years W/o
     Ramkishan Khunte, R/o Village Taldevri, P.S. Bamnidih, Tahsil
     Champa, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh),

  4. Smt. Sarita, D/o Munnalal Suryavanshi, Aged About 32 Years W/o
     Krishna Banwa, R/o Village Afreed, P.S. Saragaon, Tahsil Champa,
     District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh,

  5. Smt. Shashi Kiran D/o Munnalal Suryavanshi, Aged About 29 Years
     W/o Gopal Prasad Kiran, R/o Village Ghanwa (Tilai), P.S. And Tahsil
     Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh,

  6. Smt. Shakuntala D/o Munnalal Suryavanshi, Aged About 26 Years W/o
     Vickky Gawaskar, R/o Village Chainpur (Korba), P.S. Dipka, Tahsil
     Hardibazar, District Korba Chhattisgarh,

                                                             ---- Appellant

                                  Versus

   1. Munnalal Suryavanshi S/o Peelan Sai Suryavanshi, Aged About 63
      Years R/o Village Sothi, P.S. And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir
      Champa (Chhattisgarh) Vehicle Driver And Registered Owner,

   2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, LIC Building, Magar Para
      Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Insurer Of Motorcycle
      No. CG12AM-0106, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                           ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Shri HP Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

C A V Order

1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') against the award dated 5 th

August, 2021 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (for short 'the Tribunal') in

Claim case No.37/2020. Vide the said award, the Tribunal has

exonerated the Insurance Company (Respondent No.2 herein) and

fastened the liability upon the father of the appellants/claimants

(Respondent No.1) and has awarded an amount of Rs.7,20,000/- as

compensation on account of death of mother of the appellants/claimants

namely, Meena Bai Suryavanshi, who is also the wife of respondent

No.1 herein.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants would assail the impugned judgment

on the ground of quantum and would submit that the Tribunal has

wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the award passed

by the learned Tribunal.

4. It is an admitted fact that on 27.1.2020 deceased Meena Bai along with

her husband was returning from Champa to Village Sothi on a

motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-12/AM-0106, which was being

driven by her husband in a rash and negligent manner, due to which

Meena Bai had fallen down and she received grievous injuries and died

on the spot. The Insurance Company (Respondent No.2 herein) has

specifically submitted in the written statement that the policy did not

cover the pillion rider. Hence there is no liability against the insurance

company.

5. It is now well established by various pronouncements of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court that the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay

compensation to the pillion rider.

6. In the matter of General Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. M.

Laxmi1, it was held that in the event of an accidental death of a pillion

rider of a scooter, being a gratuitous passenger, the Insurance Company

would not be liable to pay compensation.

7. In the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Sudhakaran K.V.

and Others2, the following has been held in para-19:-

"19. 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."

1 AIR 2009 SC 626 2 AIR 2008 SC 2729, decided on 16th May, 2008

8. In the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Tilak

Singh and Others3, it has been held in para-21 thus:-

"21. In our view, although the observations made

in Asha Rani's case, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), were in

connection with carrying passengers in a goods

vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to

gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also.

Thus, we must uphold the contention of the

appellant insurance company that it owed no

liability towards the injuries suffered by the

deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as

the insurance policy was a statutory policy and

hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily

injury to gratuitous passenger."

9. Apart from the above, this Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Kamta Prasad Sahu & Others (MAC

No.618/2013, decided on 6.5.2021) also reiterated the settled legal

position that the pillion rider travelling on a two wheeler is not entitled

to get any compensation or coverage under the 'Act only policy' i.e.

policy issued strictly to meet the requirement under Section 147 of the

Act. It is also settled law that, by virtue of the relevant

Circulars/Notifications issued by the IRDA in the year 2009, the scope

of which has already been discussed and explained by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court on many a time, that the position is different if the

policy is a 'Comprehensive or Package policy, not being an 'Act only

3 (2006) 4 SCC 404

policy.'

10.In view of the above authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court that an occupant/inmate/passenger in a private vehicle,

is not a third party, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the

Insurance policy issued does not cover the risk of death of the deceased

and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay

compensation is just and proper.

11.As the Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated from the

liability, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding recorded

by the Tribunal regarding quantum is not liable to be interfered with, as

the claim was passed against the father of the appellants. Otherwise

also, considering the fact that the calculation has been done by the

Tribunal based upon judicial pronouncements given by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the recent past, hence this Court does not find any

perversity or illegality committed by the Tribunal while exonerating the

Insurance Company from the liability.

12.Accordingly, the Appeal fails, the same is liable to be and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve

HEADLINES

In the event of an accidental death of a pillion rider of a vehicle, being a

gratuitous passenger, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay

compensation under the 'Act Only Policy'.