[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Shanti Bai on 13 March, 2026
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1611 of 2016
IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited 2nd Floor, Shop No. 205,
M.M.Silver Plaza, In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Near Mining Office, Ring Road
No.1, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Insurer,
Digitally
signed by
... Appellant/Insurer
ALLENA
ANJANI
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.13 versus
16:07:41
+0530
1 - Smt. Shanti Bai Wd/o Tarachand Sahu, Aged About 38 Years
2 - Mordwaj Sahu S/o Late Tarachand Sahu, Aged About 17 Years
3 - Bhojram Sahu S/o Late Tarachand Sahu, Aged About 15 Years
4 - Ku. Tikeshwari Sahu D/o Late Tarachand Sahu, Aged About 13 Years
Respondents No. 2 to 4 are minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt.
Shantibai Sahu,
5 - Mansharam Sahu S/o Late Rambagas Sahu, Aged About 70 Years
6 - Smt. Teejbati Sahu W/o Manshram Sahu, Aged About 65 Years
Respondents No. 1 to 6 are R/o Village Tamasivni, Tahsil And P.S.- Aarang,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants,
7 - Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Bandhuram Sahu, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village
Torla, P.S. Gobra, Nawapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver,
8a - Chandraprakash Dhiwar S/o Panchu Dhiwar, Aged About 45 Years R/o
Village Charoda, P.S. And Tahsil- Aarang, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.................Owner,
8b - Panchuram Dhiwar S/o Punauram Dhiwar, R/o Village Charoda, P.S. And
Tahsil- Aarang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Owner
... Respondents
For Appellant : Shri Pravesh Sahu appears on behalf of Shri P.R.
Patankar, Advocate.
For Respondents : None, though served.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Judgment on Board
13/03/2026
1. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the MV Act) seeking
exoneration from its liability to pay 50% of the compensation, out of
awarded amount of Rs.9,35,000/- passed by the Principal Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 419/2015 vide its
award dated 11.08.2016. The parties to this appeal shall herein after
be referred as per their description before the Court below.
2. As per claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, on
21.04.2010 at 4.00 pm, when the deceased Tarachand Sahu was
going to his village Tamaseoni on a Tractor bearing registration
No.CG/04/DM/3366 and trolley No.CG/04/DA-0166 (in short, the
offending vehicle), which was being driven by Non-applicant
No.1/driver Shiv Kumar Sahu and on account of his rash and negligent
driving, the said offending vehicle turned turtle and the deceased was
crushed under the said vehicle and later on, succumbed to the injuries.
It is not disputed that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was
owned by Non-applicants No.2a - Chandra Prakash Dhiwar and Non-
applicant No.2b - Panchuram Dhiwar and was insured with Non-
applicant No.3 - IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited.
3. On account of death of Tarachand Sahu, a claim application was filed
by his legal representatives under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking
compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- under various heads, pleading inter
alia, that he was aged 38 years at the time of accident and was
working as mason.
4. The claim application was resisted by the Non-applicants on various
grounds including Non-applicant No.3/insurance company taking a
plea that there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance
policy.
5. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues on the basis of pleadings and
evidence and while deciding the issues No.1 & 2 in affirmative, held
that on account of rash and negligent driving by Non-applicant
No.1/driver, the offending vehicle turned turtle and the the deceased,
who was sitting in the offending vehicle, was crushed under it and
succumbed to the injuries and further held that, the offending vehicle
was being plied in breach of policy conditions and consequently,
awarded amount of compensation of Rs.9,35,000/- along with interest
@ 6% per annum from the date of award till its realisation while
directing Non-applicant No.3/insurer to first pay 50% of the amount of
compensation and then recover the same from the Non-applicants
No.1 & 2a, driver and owner. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that though the
offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company on
the date of accident, but the learned Tribunal, after considering
documents available on record and oral evidence of respective parties,
has arrived at a correct finding at the time of accident, the offending
vehicle was being plied in contravention to the policy condition and
despite that, it held the appellant/insurance company liable for payment
of compensation to the extent of 50%, which is totally erroneous finding
and cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record
of the Tribunal including the evidence adduced on record.
8. In the present case, it is not disputed that the deceased died on
account of vehicular accident. It is also not in dispute that on the date
of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the
appellant/insurance company.
9. Now, the question that remains to be considered is whether the
Tribunal was justified in fixing the liability upon the appellant/insurance
company to the extent of 50%?
10. Upon perusal of evidence on record, it is clear that the offending
vehicle was not registered as a transport vehicle under Section 147 of
the MV Act and was registered only for agricultural purposes, therefore,
its use was restricted to agricultural purposes. Further it is evident that
Respondents No.1 & 2 have neither pleaded nor produced any
evidence to show that the vehicle was being used for agricultural
purposes. After considering the evidence available on record, the
Tribunal held that Non-applicant No.3/appellant insurance company
could, if at all, be held liable only in respect of Non-applicant No.2a, as
there exists no contract of insurance between Non-applicant No.3 and
Non-applicant No.2b, the owner of the trolley, therefore, Non-applicant
No.3 cannot be fastened with any liability qua Non-applicant No.2b. It
was held by the Tribunal that Non-applicant No.2a was using the
offending vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy, and the deceased was travelling in the trolley as a
gratuitous passenger. A perusal of the premium schedule in Ex.D-2
clearly shows that no premium was paid to cover the risk of gratuitous
passengers. Hence, the liability of Non-applicant No.3 does not arise
under the insurance policy. However, the Tribunal further held that the
tractor, owned by Non-applicant No.2a, was insured, while trolley,
owned by Non-applicant No.2b, was a separately registered vehicle,
which cannot run independently and can be used only when attached
to a tractor. Since Non-applicant No.2a is the owner of tractor and that,
there exists no contract of insurance between Non-applicant No.3 and
Non-applicant No.2b, therefore, considering the evidence available on
record and in the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking
the support of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of
S. Ayyappan vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, reported in
2013 (7) SCC 62, the Tribunal held Non-applicant No.3/appellant
herein liable to pay 50% of the compensation on behalf of Respondent
No.2a, with liberty to recover the said amount from Non-applicants
No.1 & 2a.
11. When the matter is examined in the light of decision in the case of
Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company
Limited and others, (2018) 7 SCC 558, the finding of liability over the
appellant/insurance company to the extent of 50%, recorded by the
Tribunal is based on evidence available on record, which is neither
perverse nor contrary to the record.
12. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in
the impugned award, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed
and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Anjani
