1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1641 of 2016 Judgment Reserved on : 19/02/2026 Judgment Delivered on : 03/03/2026 IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Through- Its Divisional Manager, 3rd Floor, Shop No. 345-347, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, G.E.Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Insurer, --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Dilip Kumari W/o Late Milan @ Tikleshwar Maitri, Aged About 27 Years, 2 - Minor Chudamani Maitri S/o Late Milan @ Tikleshwar Maitri, Aged About 10 Years, 3 - Minor Bhuneshwar Maitri S/o Late Milan @ Tikleshwar Maitri, Aged About 7 Years, Respondent Nos.2 & 3 Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Dilip Kumari, 4 - Umeshwar S/o Late Sushilchand Maitri, Aged About 60 Years, 5 - Smt. Rathkunwar W/o Umeshwar Maitri, Aged About 55 Years, All are R/o Village- Bhothali, P.S. and Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, ...............Claimants, 6 - Tarachand S/o Budhuram Ratre, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village- Godam, P.S. and Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, ...........Driver, 7 - Chandrashekar S/o Mokoprasad Ratre, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village- Godam, P.S. and Tahsil - Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Swapnil Thawaney, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 5 : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare and Mr. Bhagat Ram, Advocates on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocates For Respondent No.6 & 7 : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.03.03 14:32:34 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 27.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 23/2015, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,94,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization, fastening the liability upon the Non-Applicants jointly and severally. The Tribunal further held that Non-Applicant No.3, being the Insurance Company (Appellant herein) is primarily liable to pay the compensation. 2. As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 01.01.2014, Milan @ Tikleshwar Maitri (deceased hereinafter), aged about 30 years, had gone to village Bhedwan for paddy threshing work on daily wages. While returning home on foot at about 7:30 PM, he stood near the field of Narsingh Patel to board a Mahindra Tractor bearing registration No. CG-13-L-7028 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”). It is alleged that Non-applicant No. 1 - Tarachand (Respondent No.6 herein) was driving the said offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and, upon reaching a curved portion of the road, suddenly turned it, due to which, the offending vehicle overturned. As a result, the deceased was crushed under the offending vehicle and sustained fatal injuries, leading to his death on the spot. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by Non-applicant No.2- Chandrashekhar and insured with Non-applicant No.3- IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited. 3 3. Upon the claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 39,15,000/-, it was, inter alia, pleaded that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 30 years and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month by working as a labourer and also by doing agricultural work. The learned Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, passed the award as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, fastening liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company without proper appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, is erroneous and unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that although the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant/Insurance Company on the date of the accident, but the deceased was travelling in the said offending vehicle and the offending vehicle, being a tractor, was not meant for carrying passengers. The deceased was allegedly sitting on the engine of the tractor and, therefore, was not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, amounting to a breach of the policy conditions. He also submits that the final report, FIR and merg intimation (Exs. P-1 to P-3), filed by the police against the driver of the offending vehicle and relied upon by the claimants themselves, clearly reveals that at the time of the accident, the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Hence, the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. In the alternative, it is contended that if this Court comes to the conclusion 4 that the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award, an order of “pay and recover” may be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/ claimants, while admitting that no separate appeal has been preferred by them against the impugned award, supported the impugned award. It is submitted that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company, and the learned Claims Tribunal, after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, has rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, submitted that as per the testimony of AW-2, Phulendra Kumar Koshle, on the date of the accident, the deceased was standing near the road and was not travelling in the offending vehicle, further, this witness has seen the alleged accident. It is further submitted that the deceased, being a third party, was covered under the policy and, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal, upon proper appreciation of the evidence of AW-2, has rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. It is further contended that merely on the basis of the FIR, no adverse inference can be drawn, particularly when neither the informant nor the Investigating Officer was examined by the claimants to substantiate the contents thereof. Thus, the Insurance Company has failed to discharge its liability with regard to the death of the deceased as to 5 whether he was standing on the road or was travelling in the offending vehicle. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Claims Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 9. Before the claims Tribunal, wife of deceased, Dilip Kumari was examined as AW-1 and she has stated that when her husband (deceased) was returning home after the work, a tractor which was being driven by Non-applicant No.1 – Tarachand in a rash and negligent manner, overturned and her husband who was standing nearby the road got crushed under the Tractor and died on the spot. However, this witness in her cross-examination admitted that she has not seen the occurrence of the accident. Further, she has exhibited investigation report of police i.e. final report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2) and merg intimation (Ex.P-3). 10.Moreover, Phulendra Kumar Koshley (AW-02) has stated that on the date of accident i.e. 01.01.2014, there is a turn near the field of Narsingh Patel where the deceased was standing, and at that time Non-applicant No.1 – Tarachand drove the Tractor in a rash and negligent manner, as such, the deceased tried to stop the Tractor but it got overturned and the deceased got crushed under the Tractor and died on the spot. 11. However, contrary to the above, the Final Report (Ex. P-1), FIR (Ex. P- 2), and Merg Intimation (Ex. P-3), lodged after two hours of the accident and submitted by Police Station Sarangarh before the Judicial 6 Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh, disclose that an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC was registered against Non-Applicant No. 1, Tarachand Ratre, the driver of the offending vehicle, for driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It is noteworthy that in the said Final Report (Ex. P-1), Phulendra Kumar Koshley (AW-2) is not cited as an eye-witness in the list of witnesses; rather, he is shown only as a witness to the seizure. Furthermore, as per the FIR (Ex. P-2), it is mentioned that on 01.01.2014 at about 07:30 PM, the deceased, Tikleshwar, was sitting on the engine of the Tractor (offending vehicle), which was being driven by Tarachand Ratre in a rash and negligent manner. Upon reaching near the field of Narsingh Patel, at the turn, the Tractor overturned, resulting in the deceased being crushed and dying on the spot. On perusal of the FIR (Ex. P-2) and the Merg Intimation (Ex. P-3), it is apparent that the name of the eye-witness, Phulendra Kumar Koshley (AW-2), is not mentioned in either of these documents. Additionally, Nohar Singh Maitri, who lodged the FIR, and the investigating officer have also not been examined by either of the parties. In view of the above, the plea advanced by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle that Phulendra Kumar Koshley (AW-2) witnessed the alleged accident, is not sustainable. Further, the evidence of wife of the deceased Dilip Kumari (AW-1) and Phulendra Kumar Koshley (AW-2) does not corroborate with the contents of Final Report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2) and Merg Intimation (Ex.P-3) with regard to the manner in which the alleged accident took place. Therefore, the aforesaid documents, which were relied upon and exhibited by the claimants themselves, constitute important pieces of documentary evidence and carry greater evidentiary value, and are reliable. 7 12. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr. in Civil Appeal which arises out of SLP(C) No.10351/2019 vide order dated 25.02.2025 has held in para 4 which reads as under:- “4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver.” 13.Thus, from the evidence available on record in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that on the date of the accident, the deceased was sitting on the engine of the offending vehicle, and due to the rash and negligent driving of Non-Applicant No. 1, the vehicle turned turtle, resulting in the death of the deceased on the spot. Further, there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to show that the deceased was standing on the road at the time of the accident. Moreover, subsequent to the accident, an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC was registered by the Police against the driver of the offending vehicle, Tarachand Ratre, and no counter report alleging false implication has been lodged by him with the Police or any higher authority. Apart from the above, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have not entered the witness box to examine themselves. 14.There is no dispute as to the nature and type of vehicle involved, which is “Tractor”. Admittedly, there is only one seat in the Tractor, which is exclusively for the driver. Nobody else is intended to be carried in the Tractor or Trolly, but for carrying the good for the 8 agriculture purpose (in the Trolly). Whether the risk of a person travelling in any goods vehicle could be covered under the policy issued in terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had come up for consideration before the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Others, (2003) 2 SCC 223. Overruling the decision rendered by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company vs. Satpal Singh And Others, (2000) 1 SCC 237, it was categorically held that no passenger is entitled to travel in a goods carriage except in the capacity as the owner/representative of the goods carried in the vehicle or as the employee of the insured. 15. In the matter of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Eshwar and others reported in 2008 (5) MPHT 45 (CG), this Court has held in para 6 which reads under:- “6. It is not in dispute that the insurer is not required statutorily under Section 147(1) of the Act to cover the risk of a person travelling on the engine of the tractor besides the driver of the tractor. In United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt Rambai and others, Miscellaneous Appeal No.789 of 2006, decided on 07-07-2008, this Court has held that the deceased having travelled on the tractor could also not be termed as a third party so as to fasten statutory liability on the insurance company. By carrying the deceased on the engine of the tractor a fundamental breach of the policy of insurance is established and, therefore, liability for payment of compensation could not be fastened on the Insurance Company. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bramaranbike and others, 2006 ACJ 671, the High Court of Karnataka has in similar situation held that the liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company in such a case. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Diwakar ancf others, 2006 (2) TAC 937 (Bom.), the High Court of Bombay has also held that in a case of death of a child aged 11 years travelling on the mudguard of the tractor the insurer not being statutorily required to insure passengers in a goods vehicle was not liable to pay compensation. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vedwati and others, Appeal (Civil) No.860/2007 (arising out of SLP(C) No.8317/2002) with Civil Appeal No.861/2007 (arising out of SLP(C) No.8802/2002), decided by the Supreme Court of India on 20-02-2007, it was held that carrying of passengers on a tractor is not contemplated by the Act. In other words, the legislative intent seems to be to prohibit carrying of any passenger on the tractor. The inevitable conclusion 9 therefore, is that since the provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of the vehicle to get the tractor insured for any passenger travelling on the engine of the tractor, the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the owner. In the present case, in view of the testimony of Anjl Kumar Sahu, applicants' witness No.2, who was also travelling on the tractor with the deceased, it is established beyond doubt that at the time of the accident the deceased Lilesh Kumar Yadav was carelessly sitting on the engine of the tractor and died as a result of fall therefrom. Liability to pay compensation, therefore, squarely rests with respondent No.3/owner of the tractor.” 16. In the light of aforesaid evidence coupled with the decision of this Court in the above referred matter, I am of the view that there is a breach of policy conditions at the time of accident, therefore, owner and driver of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and the appellant – insurance company is exonerated from its liability. 17. As regards the payment of compensation, considering the facts and circumstance of the case, the fact that the offending vehicle was duly insured with Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company at the time of accident, and also keeping in view the benevolent provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimants first and then recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle in question, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash