Chattisgarh High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Derhin Bai on 2 May, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:20211
Digitally
NAFR
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.05.05
12:43:47
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1290 of 2018
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal
Officer, Reliance General Insurancer Company Limited, 301-
302, Corporate House 169 Rnt Marg, Opposide Jhabua Tower,
Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
...Appellant
versus
1. Smt. Derhin Bai W/o Somnath Chandrawanshi, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Village Narayangarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
2. Deleted (Somnath) S/o Honble Court Order Dated 02-01-2024.
3. Ku. Sita D/o Somnath Chandrawanshi, Aged About 14 Years,
Minor Through Legal Representative Father Respondent No. 2,
R/o Village Narayangarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh....................................Claimants.
4. Maniram S/o Hirauram Nishad, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Village Narayangarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh (Owner Cum Driver).
5. Smt. Saritabai Wd/o Bhuneshwar Chandrawanshi, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Village Mudkhusra, Tahsil Dongarhgarh, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv. on
behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv.
For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Satish Surya, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate.
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
Order on Board
(02.05.2025)
1 This is the insurer's appeal against the award dated 08.02.2018
passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 256/2014 whereby a
compensation of Rs. 7,58,500/- with interest @ 7% per annum
has been awarded in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 3 & 5.
2 The brief case of the appellant is that on 29.04.2014,
Bhuneshwar Chandravanshi (deceased) was traveling in a
Maruti Suzuki Alto Car bearing registration No. AP-10-AF 8484
from Chhuria village to his residence in Narayanagarh village,
accompanied by his acquaintance and friend and when they
reached near the stretch between Dumardin and Lalutola
villages, respondent no. 4 namely Maniram allegedly drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, causing it to fall into a
ditch. As a result of which, Bhuneshwar Chandravanshi
sustained grievous injuries and died.
3 The Tribunal in paragraphs 30 to 33 of the award impugned
held that it is evident from the averments made by the
appellant/insurance company in its written statement that
appellant/insurance company only took the defence that the
driver/respondent No.4 herein namely Maniram did not have a
valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and no
other defence has been taken by the appellant/insurance
company. In other words, appellant/insurance company did
not plead that the insurance policy was 'Act only policy', which
would not cover the risk of occupants/passengers. It is a
fundamental principle of civil litigation that the evidence
without pleading is not admissible, and therefore, considering
these circumstances, fastened the liability on the
appellant/insurance company for payment of compensation.
4 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance
company submits that finding of the Tribunal as mentioned in
paras 30 to 33 of its order is bad in law. He further submits
that since the deceased was traveling as a passenger in car for
which risk is not covered under the Insurance Policy/Act policy.
Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Policy is not liable to pay
compensation. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed by
exonerating the Appellant/insurance company for the payment
of awarded compensation.
5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents No. 1 to 3 opposes the contention made by learned
counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned order
passed by the learned Claims tribunal and submits that
appellant/insurance company did not plead before the learned
Claims tribunal that the insurance policy was only an Act
policy, which would not cover the risk of occupants/passengers,
therefore, the conclusion of the tribunal is correct and no
interference is required.
6 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned.
7 The position of law as it stands at present is that in case of a
private vehicle insured against "Act only Policy", the liability of
occupants is not covered as the protection of Chapter-XI of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is only available against the third
party risks and the occupants of a private vehicle are not third
parties. And in such cases direction to pay and recover cannot
be issued to the insurer.
8 In the present case, the deceased was traveling in car as a
passenger and it is clear from the insurance policy (Ex-D/1)
that it was 'Act only policy', which would not cover the risk of
passengers/occupants. Thus, the finding of the Claims Tribunal
in paragraphs 30 to 33, so far as the fastening liability upon the
insurance company is concerned, is not sustainable as the
deceased was traveling in car as a passenger and as per the
policy (Ex.D-1), the risk of the deceased was not covered.
9 Thus, considering the facts of the present case, this Court finds
that in absence of risk cover of the occupants/passengers in the
'Act only Policy', the appellant/insurance company cannot be
held liable for payment of compensation.
10 Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/insurance company is
allowed. The appellant/insurance company is exonerated from
its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. The
owner/driver (respondent No.4) shall be liable to pay the entire
awarded compensation to the claimants. Compensation, if any,
deposited by the insurance company/appellant the same shall
be recovered from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. The
impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of
the conditions shall remain intact.
11 Record of the Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of this
judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judge
Sourabh P.
