Rajesh Kumar Bakhla vs Kunti Bai
2025 Latest Caselaw 4329 Chatt

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4329 Chatt
Judgement Date : 9 September, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Rajesh Kumar Bakhla vs Kunti Bai on 9 September, 2025

                                             1




                                                            2025:CGHC:46011


                                                                              NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                 MAC No. 129 of 2020



1 - Rajesh Kumar Bakhla S/o Jaipal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Badgaon, P. S.
Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh ........(Non Applicant No. 01) .....(Driver)


2 - Ashok Kumar Minj S/o Balram Prasad Minj Aged About 38 Years R/o Village
Badgaon, P. S. Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh ........(Non Applicant No. 02)
.....(Owner)
                                                                        ... Appellant(s)
                                         versus


1 - Kunti Bai W/o Late Bandhanram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Badgaon, P. S.
Baikunthpur,          District       Korea         Chhattisgarh        ........(Claimants)


2 - Rajmani D/o Dhirendra Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Badgaon, P. S.
Baikunthpur,          District       Korea         Chhattisgarh        ........(Claimants)


3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Shop
No. 07, Ground Road, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh............(Insurer)
(Non Applicant No. 03)
                                                                     ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Shri Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Shashank Agrawal, Adv. on behalf of Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate

({Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

Order on Board

09/09/2025

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act') has been filed being aggrieved by the award dated 18/10/2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (CG). Against a claim of Rs.42,50,000/-, compensation of Rs.7,10,400/- was awarded in favour of respondents 1 and 2 / claimants. The insurance company / respondent No.3 was exonerated on the ground that the deceased was seated on the offending vehicle Tractor and was a gratuitous passenger.

2. The claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act has been filed on account of death of Sheshmani in an accident that occurred on 04/04/2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Tractor) bearing registration No.CG-16 E-0148 and Trolley bearing registration No.16 E-0147 by driver - Rajesh Kumar Bakhla, owned by Ashok Kumar Minj and insured with respondent No.3. As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 18 years and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by doing labour work. Therefore, the aforestated compensation was claimed.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed joint written statement and except admitted facts, denied the averments of the claim application. The insurance company took a plea that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the driver was not having valid and effective driving license.

4. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants, exonerated the insurance company and held the owner and driver of the vehicle liable to pay compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to exonerating the insurance company from payment of compensation is bad in law and requires suitable enhancement. The deceased was not seated in the tractor and when the insurance policy is there, liability to pay compensation is upon the insurance company.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 opposes the above submission and submits that it is established on record that the deceased was seated in the tractor and there was no extra capacity for seating except the driver. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and does not require any interference.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. Though learned counsel for the appellants submits that breach of policy has not been proved, however, from the statement of the claimant, pleadings and evidence on record, it is established that the deceased was seated in the tractor and the witness of the insurance company has stated that risk of the deceased was not covered under the policy being a gratuitous passenger. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan & Ors. reported in (2007) 7 SCC 56, the finding does not appear to be wrong or illegal. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-

({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE

Deepti

Digitally signed by DEEPTI DEEPTI HARIKUMAR HARIKUMAR Date: