Chattisgarh High Court
Shriram General Insurance ... vs Suraj Singh on 13 October, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
M.A.(C). NO. 952 OF 2015
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E/8, RIICO, 3-5,
Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajashthan) 302022. [Insurer]
... Appellant
versus
1. Gayawati, W/o Late Man Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o Village
Badikhar, Gram Panchayat Badikhar, Thana Bhalumada, Tahsil Kotma,
Block Anuppur, District Anuppur (M.P.) [Claimant]
2. Rajendra Singh, S/o Mandhari Singh Gond, R/o Khanda, Thana and
District Anuppur (M.P.) [Driver]
3. Thanesh Prasad Kenvat, S/o Ramprasad, R/o Village Bichhiya, Post
Batura, District Shahdol (M.P.) [Owner]
4. Johan Singh Shyam, S/o Ramlal Shyam, R/o Village Ghinochi, Post
Seoni, Thana and Tahsil Marvahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
5. Dadan Singh, S/o Gayadeen Kenvat, Secretary, Gram Panchayat
Badikhar, Thana Bhalumada, District Anuppur (M.P.)
6. Chief Executive Officer, Block Anuppur, District Anuppur (M.P.)
7. Collector, Anuppur for Government of M.P., District Anuppur (M.P.)
... Respondents
M.A.(C). NO. 974 OF 2015
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E/8, RIICO, 3-5,
Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajashthan) 302022. [Insurer]
... Appellant
versus
1. Suraj Singh, S/o Ramsevak, aged about 32 years, Caste Gond, R/o
Village Badikhar, Gram Panchayat Badikhar, Thana Bhalumada, Tahsil
Kotma, Block Anuppur, District Anuppur (M.P.) [Claimant]
2. Rajendra Singh, S/o Mandhari Singh Gond, R/o Khanda, Thana and
District Anuppur (M.P.) [Driver]
3. Thanesh Prasad Kenvat, S/o Ramprasad, R/o Village Bichhiya, Post
Batura, District Shahdol (M.P.) [Owner]
4. Johan Singh Shyam, S/o Ramlal Shyam, R/o Village Ghinochi, Post
Seoni, Thana and Tahsil Marvahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
5. Dadan Singh, S/o Gayadeen Kenvat, Secretary, Gram Panchayat
Badikhar, Thana Bhalumada, District Anuppur (M.P.)
6. Chief Executive Officer, Block Anuppur, District Anuppur (M.P.)
7. Collector, Anuppur for Government of M.P., District Anuppur (M.P.)
... Respondents
For Appellant/Insurance Co. : Mr. Sangeet Ku. Kushwaha, Adv.
For Respondent No.1/Claimant : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Adv.
For Respondent No.3/Owner : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
[13/10/2022]
1. The present are two Appeals filed by Appellant/Insurance Company,
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the two
Awards passed on 16.2.2015 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Pendrarod, District Bilaspur (as it then was) in Claim Case
No.66/2011 [Gayawati Vs. Rajendra Singh & Others] and Claim Case
No.33/2011 [Suraj Singh Vs. Rajendra Singh & Others].
2. Vide the aforesaid two impugned Awards, the learned Tribunal has
awarded a compensation of Rs.34,300/- to the injured Claimant Gayawati
and Rs.19,084/- to the injured Claimant Suraj Singh, respectively, with
interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of their
respective Claim Case.
3. Since the grounds raised are common in both the Appeals, this Court
for convenience sake is inclined to decide these Appeals by this common
Order.
4. The solitary ground on which the Appellant/Insurance Company has
challenged the impugned Awards is that on the date of accident i.e.,
26.1.2010, the offending vehicle i.e. Metador bearing Registration No.
MP18-7224 was being used by the State Government for its own purpose
and therefore the liability if at all should have been shifted upon the State
Government and not on the Appellant/Insurance Company.
5. Contention of learned Counsel for Appellant/Insurance Company is
that it is a case where the accident took place on 26.1.2010 and on the said
date there was the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh having a meeting at
Amarkantak in Anuppur District. For attending the said meeting, certain
people were travelling together in the said Metador. En route, the Metador
met with an accident resulting in certain casualties and couple of injuries of
which two of the injured persons are Respondent No.1/Claimant in both the
present Appeals.
6. According to learned Counsel for Appellant/Insurance Company,
since the two injured Claimants were travelling in the said Metador for
attending the Chief Minister's function, it has to be presumed that the said
vehicle was being used by the government for government purposes.
Therefore, the liability for payment of compensation should be fastened
upon the State Government and not on the Insurance Company.
7. However, perusal of the pleadings would clearly reflect that though
the Appellant/Insurance Company had taken these objections in their
Written Statement but there was no evidence whatsoever led on behalf of
the Insurance Company to substantiate these contentions and grounds that
they have raised. Further, what is also evident is that there is no evidence
also to establish that there was any acquisition or seizure of the said
Metador made by the State Government or that it was being used on the
instructions or orders of the State Government or any of the Officers of the
State Government. In the absence of any such evidence also the grounds
of challenge raised by the Appellant/Insurance Company, the instant two
Appeals would not have any force.
8. So far as the Judgment cited by learned Counsel for Appellant/
Insurance Company rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepa Devi & Others" [AIR 2008 SC 735]
is concerned, the same would not be applicable in the instant factual
backdrop for the reason that in the said case the vehicle was seized by the
State Government for election purpose and for election duties, unlike the
present case where there was neither any acquisition or any seizure made
for any government use. Thus, the said Judgment cited by the
Appellant/Insurance Company is distinguishable.
9. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, both the Appeals i.e. M.A.(C)
No.952/2015 and M.A.(C) No.974/2015 being devoid of merits the same
deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
/sharad/ Judge
