Chattisgarh High Court

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Dukalheen Bai on 25 July, 2025

                                          1




                                                             2025:CGHC:36255
                                                                          NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                             MAC No. 943 of 2018

1 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through The Branch Manager,
Branch Office 1st Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opp. Rajeev Plaza, Old
Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,
Represented Through Its Asstt. Manager, T.P.Hub, Divisional Office,
Bilaspur,     Chhattisgarh      (Respondent     No.3),     District   :   Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - Smt. Dukalheen Bai Wd/o Late Bahorik Kenwat Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Pandhi, P.S. Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Naveen Kumar S/o Jeevanlal Chandrakar Aged About 27 Years At Kurmipara, Village Karra, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Phal Mandi, Tifra, P.S. Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Sushil Saluja S/o Late Harbanshlal Saluja R/o Shriram Phal Bhandar, Rapta Chowk Chantidih, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R. N. Pusty, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25.07.2025

1 Heard on admission. Admit.

2 This is the insurer's appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 19.02.2018 passed by

the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.)

in Claim Case No.52/2016 whereby a compensation of

Rs.4,08,000/- with interest @ 06% per annum has been awarded

in favour of the Claimants.

3 The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that

the present claim arises out of a fatal motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 05.09.2015, resulting in the death of the applicant's

son, Late Kriparam Kewat, who was employed as a helper on a

goods transport vehicle, bearing registration number CG-10-C-

4935 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle"). On the

said date, the deceased was performing his duties as a helper

and was travelling in the offending pickup vehicle from a work-

related location towards Bilaspur, seated in the helper's seat, as a

part of his employment responsibilities. At approximately 1:00 PM,

when the vehicle reached a curve near Durga Mandir, situated in

Village Bharari, falling under the jurisdiction of Police Station

Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), the vehicle was being driven in

a rash, negligent, and reckless manner by Respondent No.2, who

was the driver of the offending vehicle. while negotiating the said

curve, the driver, without exercising proper caution, abruptly

turned the vehicle at high speed, failing to maintain reasonable

control or adherence to traffic safety norms. As a direct result of

the driver's negligence, the door on the helper's side of the

vehicle swung open suddenly. The deceased, Kriparam Kewat,

was unable to maintain balance due to the sudden jerk and the

opening of the door and consequently fell from the moving vehicle

onto the road. He sustained multiple grievous and life-threatening

injuries.

4 Following the incident, the injured was rushed to CIMS Hospital,

Bilaspur, for emergency medical treatment. Despite best medical

efforts, he succumbed to his injuries the same day, i.e., on

05.09.2015. The accident was promptly reported at Police Station

Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, and a criminal case was registered as

Crime No.225/2015, under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860, against the errant driver/Respondent No.2. The

deceased, Kriparam Kewat, was approximately 10-12 years old at

the time of his death and was gainfully employed as a helper in

the pickup vehicle owned by Respondent No.3. He was drawing a

monthly income of approximately Rs.5,000/-, which he regularly

contributed towards the livelihood and sustenance of his widowed

mother. The Respondent No.1 is a destitute and dependent

mother, with no independent source of income, and was solely

reliant upon the earnings of her deceased son. His death has

caused her not only deep emotional trauma but also complete

financial destitution and dependency and she incurred an

expenditure of approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

only) towards the last rites, funeral ceremonies, cremation

expenses, and customary social feasts, all performed in

accordance with local customs and religious practices.

5 The accident resulting death was solely and entirely attributable to

the rash and negligent manner in which the vehicle was driven by

Respondent No.2, without due care, caution, or adherence to

traffic regulations. The offending vehicle was owned by

Respondent No.3 and was duly insured at the time of the accident

with the present applicant herein, the insurance company, who is

therefore jointly and severally liable to indemnify the claim arising

from the said accident. The applicant has, thus, filed the present

claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking a total compensation of Rs.

10,20,000/- (in words 'Rupees Ten Lakh Twenty Thousand only')

under various heads. It is respectfully submitted that the applicant

is entitled to just and fair compensation from the non-applicants,

who are jointly and severally liable for the fatal consequences

resulting from the said motor vehicle accident. Hence this appeal

is filed by the Insurance Company.

6 The learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the pleadings and

evidence set-forth by the parties, held that the injuries sustained

due to the alleged accident. It was further held by the Tribunal that

the insured had sustained serious injuries in the accident,

resulting in death of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded

compensation to the tune of ₹4,08,000/- wherein the liability part

is upon the insurance company/present applicant. Therefore, the

total compensation of ₹4,08,000/- was granted by the Tribunal to

the claimants.

7 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company

submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in law in passing the

impugned judgment and has wrongly appreciated the evidence on

record. It is further contended that on the date of accident the

deceased was a student and it was not established by leading

cogent evidence by the claimant that the deceased was employed

in the pick up as a helper, therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to

have held that the deceased was merely travelling as a gratuitous

passenger in the insured vehicle that is why there was a clear

breach of policy conditions and the insurance company cannot be

held liable for payment of compensation. Thus, the appeal is liable

to be allowed and the insurance company is entitled for

exoneration.

8 Respondents No.2 and 3 herein remained ex-parte before the

learned Claims Tribunal and did not submit any written statement

or adduced any evidence in support of their case.

9 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

record.

10 This Court has carefully perused the record of the Tribunal and

considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. It

is evident that Respondents No. 2 and 3, the driver and the

owner of the vehicle, respectively, remained ex-parte before the

Tribunal and did not contest the claim. No contrary evidence

was adduced by the insurer to rebut the testimony of the claimant

or to prove that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and not

engaged on the vehicle as a helper.

11 The unrebutted oral and documentary evidence placed on record

by the claimant sufficiently establishes that the deceased was

working as a helper on the vehicle in question. There is no

material placed on record by the appellant-insurance company to

disprove this fact or establish a breach of the terms and conditions

of the policy.

12 In the absence of any evidence to the contrary and keeping in

view the principle of "preponderance of probabilities"

applicable in motor accident claims, the finding recorded by the

Tribunal regarding the employment status of the deceased as a

helper cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence

on record. The Tribunal has rightly held the insurance company

liable to indemnify the claim, as the deceased was a person

engaged in connection with the operation of the vehicle.

13 The amount of compensation awarded is also just, fair, and based

on settled legal principles. There is no perversity, illegality, or

jurisdictional error in the findings recorded by the Tribunal that

would warrant interference by this Court under appellate

jurisdiction.

14 Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the

well-reasoned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal.

The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

15 Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of

this order forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Digitally ABHIGYA signed by SAXENA ABHIGYA SAXENA