Chattisgarh High Court
Akhilesh Lal vs Godavari Bai on 23 April, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
Digitally 2025:CGHC:18407
signed by
RAVVA
UTTEJ
KUMAR RAJU
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 10.02.2025
Order Delivered on 23.4.2025
MAC No. 1224 of 2018
1 - Akhilesh Lal S/o Kunj Bihari Lal aged about 40 years, wrongly mentioned as
Abhilekh Lal in Certified Copy of Award), R/o Daldali Road, Near Pani Tanki,
Mahasamund, Police Station and District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.....(Owner
And Driver), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Nand Kumar @ Nandu Sahu S/o Sukaluram aged about 27 years, R/o Sirgitti,
Police Station Tahsil, and District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District :
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants
Versus
1 - Godavari Bai W/o Manrakhan Sen aged about 45 years, R/o Ward No. 22,
Mahasamund, Police Station and District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh......
(Claimant), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Rayal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Chawla Complex, Sainagar,
Devendra Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Appellants : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C.A.V. Order
1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellants
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act of 1988') questioning the legality and
propriety of the award dated 08.05.2018 passed by the learned
Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Fast Track Court
(FTC), District-Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 06/2013,
whereby the learned Cliams Tribunal has awarded the claim
against the appellants to the tune of Rs. 3,03,000/- with interest
of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization in
favour of the respondents/claimants.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 26.01.2010 the
claimant/respondent No. 1 Godawari Bai was returning from
Sonasili to Mahasamund with other passengers in a vehicle No.
CG-06-M-0105 at that time, near NH-06 village-Chirku, the
appellant No. 1 by driving offending vehicle truck bearing
registration No. CG-04-J-4375 in a rash and negligent manner
dashed the said vehicle from the backside as a result of which
the claimant/respondent No. 1 and other co-passengers have
received severe injuries. Thereafter, claimant/respondent No. 1
was taken to the District Hospital-Mahasamund and during her
primary treatment her X-Ray was taken and it is found from its
report that her both legs below the knees got fractured and she
got her right leg toe injured. Thereafter, looking to her serious
condition she was referred to Ambedkar Hospital Raipur (C.G.)
where she got her both legs operated and a steel rod was
implanted, as a result of which she was unable to walk freely
due to the injuries she sustained. Report regarding the alleged
accident was lodged at Police Station Tumgaon in which crime
was registered as Crime No. 22/2010 under Sections 279, 337 &
338 of IPC.
It was pleaded at the time of accident that the
claimant/respondent No. 1 was of 45 years of age and she was
a healthy woman doing labour work and earning Rs. 150/- per
day and she was the sole breadwinner of the family, as such she
claimed a total sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- with interest as a
compensation under various heads.
3. The appellants have filed their written statement as jointly before
claim Tribunal after receiving the notices of the claim application
and they have denied the averments of the facts and submitted
that offending vehicle was owned by the appellant No. 1 and
appellant No. 2 having the valid legal driving license at the time
of incident, therefore if compensation has awarded to the
claimant, then the liability be fixed to the insurance company.
4. The respondent No. 2 Insurance Company has filed its reply
before the learned Claims Tribunal and denied the facts of the
case and it is submitted that the claimant has not mentioned the
policy no. in the claim application and the offending vehicle has
not been insured in the office of respondent company. The
insurance company also submitted in his reply that the claimant
was sitting in the vehicle with other co-passengers, whereas the
vehicle was insured with one coolie. Hence this is a breach of
policy matter before the Insurance Company and it is not liable
for any compensation.
5. The Claims Tribunal after hearing counsel for the respective
parties and considering the material available on the record by
the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.
3,03,000/- in favour of the claimant No. 1. with interest of 9%
from the date of award till realization fastening the liability to
satisfy the award on the appellant No. 1 and 2/driver and owner.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that impugned
award passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the facts
and evidence on record, which is liable to be set aside. At the
time of incident appellant No. 2, Driver having a valid legal
license and offending vehicle was insured in the office of
respondent No. 2, but the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly
been holding the liability against the appellants. The learned
Claims Tribunal has committed an error by appreciating the facts
and statements of witnesses and wrongly passed the
compensation award against the appellants. The respondent No.
1 claimant was a labour for loading and unloading the materials,
therefore she was sitting in the offending vehicle at the time of
incident and as per insurance policy the vehicle and coolie are
insured. Hence, in this case there is no any breach of policy. The
learned Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on
record and exonerated the insurance company which is liable to
be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitting the impugned
award and submits that the learned Tribunal minutely
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly
exonerated the insurance company and rightly passed the
liability on owner and the driver. It is clear from the documents of
Criminal Court that at the time of accident, vehicle was not used
for agricultural purpose and vehicle was used for any social
gathering. So, the learned trial Court rightly passed the award
against the owner and the driver, who are the appellants herein.
So, this appeal is without any merit and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
8. Reliance has been placed on the decision of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and
others reported in (2005) 12 SCC 243 and in judgment dated
03.01.2025 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir
and Laddakh in MA No. 92/2018 in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gulshana Begum & Others.
9. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
10. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that respondent No. 1
claimant filed the application under Section 166 & 140 of Motor
Vehicle Act against the owner, driver and insurance company of
Tractor No. CG 06 M 0105 on this ground that the driver of the
tractor was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner
and due to which the accident occurred on 26.01.2010 and she
sustained grievous injuries and due to this injury she suffered
from permanent disability.
11. The Insurance Company/respondent No. 3 denied the claim of
the claimant and raised the objection with the owner and the
driver driving the vehicle in violation of conditions of Beema
policy and there is a breach of conditions of Beema policy. So,
Beema company is not liable to pay the compensation. The
learned trial Court framed following issues in this regard. Issues
No. 3A, 3B and 3C are quoted herein as under for ready
reference:
3 अ क्या प्रश्नगत यान सुसंगत समयावधि में अनावेदक क्र 0 03 के पास
बीमित थी?
ब. यदि हां तो क्या अनावेदक क्र 0 01 एवं 02 द्वारा यान का प्रयोग बीमा
पॉलिसी की किन्ही शर्तो के विपरीत किया गया ?
स. यदि हां तो प्रभाव ?
12. The learned trial Court finds that on the date of incident vehicle
was insured with Beema Company by Royal Sundaram Aliance
Insurance Company/respondent No.3 and the respondent No. 2,
but the learned trial Court finds that the vehicle was used for
private purpose and carrying the passengers and this is breach of
Beema policy and premium was paid only for driver and coolie.
13. It is evident from documents of criminal case and the F.I.R (Ex.
P/02) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/03) that at the time of incident the
claimant was sitting as a passenger in the tractor and she
returned from Chauthiya Karyakram (Social gathering) with the
other passengers.
14. Hon'ble Apex Court held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
in para 7, 8 & 9 which reads as under:-
"7. In Asha Rani reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223: 2003
SCC (Cri) 493: (2002) 9 Sclae 172, this Court while
overruling Satpal Singh reported in (2000) 1 SCC
237:2000 SCC (Cri) 130, has clearly held that the
Insurance Company is not liable for payment of any
compensation for death of a gratuitous passenger
travelling in a goods vehicle.
8. Asha Rani reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223: 2003 SCC
(Cri) 493: (2002) 9 Sclae 172, was followed in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Devireddy Konda Reddy reported
in (2003) 2 SCC 339: 2003 SCC (Cri) 540. Yet again, the
said view was upheld in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V.
Ajit Kumar reported in (2003) 9 SCC 668: 2003 SCC
(Cri) 1915.
9. The question again came up for consideration before a
three-Judge Bench of this Court, of which we are
members, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur
reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1: 2004 SCC (Cri) 370 wherein
upon considering the effect of amendment carried out in
Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor
Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, it was opined: (SCC
pp. 7-8, paras 17-20)
"17. By reason of the 1994 amendment what was
added is 'including owner of the goods or his
authorised representative carried in the vehicle'.
The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it
compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned
amendment included only the owner of the goods
or his authorised representative carried in the
vehicle besides the third parties. The intention of
Parliament, therefore, could not have been that the
words 'any person' occurring in Section 147 would
cover all persons who were travelling in a goods
carriage in any capacity whatsoever. If such was
the intention, there was no necessity of Parliament
to carry out an amendment inasmuch as the
expression 'any person' contained in sub-clause (I)
of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147
would have included the owner of the goods or his
authorised representative besides the passengers
who are gratuitous or otherwise.
18. The observations made in this connection by the Court
in Asha Rani case reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223:2003 to
which one of us, Sinha, J., was a party, however, bear
repetition : (SCC p. 235, para 26)
'26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions
in the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the
opinion that the meaning of the words "any person"
must also be attributed having regard to the context in
which they have been used i.e. " a third party".
Keeping in view the provisions thereof do not enjoin
any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get
his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a
goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable
therefor.'
19. In Asha Rani reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223: 2003 SCC
(Cri) 493: (2002) 9 Sclae 172, it has been noticed that sub-
clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of
the 1988 Act speaks of liability which may be incurred by
the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury
to any person or damage to any property of a third party
caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a
public place. Furthermore, an owner of a passenger-
carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of
the passengers travelling in the vehicle. The premium in
view of the 1994 amendment would only cover a third party
as also the owner of the goods or his authorised
representative and not any passenger carried in a goods
vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise.
20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment
of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section
147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the
goods or his authorised representative remains the same.
Although the owner of the goods or his authorised
representative would now be covered by the policy of
insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the
intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the
insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous
passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time of
contract of insurance was entered into, nor was nay
premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to
such category of people."
15. Now, in the light of above provisions and guidelines of Hon'ble Apex
Court it is clear that at the time of accident, the claimant was sitting
as a passenger in the tractor and she returned from social gathering
with the other passengers, so the learned Tribunal rightly finds that
vehicle was used for private purpose and for carrying the passenger
and the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company, but the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the matter of Balu Krishna Chavan Vs. Reliance
General Insurance Company Ltd. and Others reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 2331 held in paras 12 & 13 which reads as under:-
"12. Even, if the contention that the appellant
was in the vehicle getting trained to be as a
cleaner, is not taken into consideration, the
fact remains that any other avocation that is
to be undertaken by the appellant would
involve physical labour which the appellant
will not be able to perform and in such
circumstance, if the appellant is not able to
realise the amount of compensation awarded
in his favour at this stage from the owner of
the vehicle, the appellant would be
prejudiced. However, the Insurance
Company, if ordered to pay to the appellant
and recover it from the owner of the vehicle,
it would not be prejudiced to that extent.
13. Therefore, keeping all aspects in view,
and not making this case as a precedent,
but, only to serve the ends of justice in the
facts of this case, we direct that respondent
No. 1 (Insurance Company) to deposit the
compensation amount before the MACT
within eight weeks from the date of the
receipt of a copy of this judgment,
whereupon, the MACT shall disburse the
amount of compensation to the appellant."
16. In the light of above judgment, this Court also ordered to pay the Beema
Company and recover it from the owner of the vehicle. So, respondent
No. 2 (Insurance Company) is directed to deposit the compensation
amount before the Tribunal within 02 months from the date of receipt of
copy of this judgment and respondent No. 02 (Insurance Company) is
reserved the liberty to recover the compensation from the owner of the
vehicle.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
U.K. Raju
