1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1429 of 2018 Judgment Reserved on: 7.11.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 15.1.2026 • Nirmal Masih S/o Narendra Lal Masih Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Lakhandi, Police Station- Koni (Wrongly Mention Sarkanda), Tahsil- Takhatpur, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.....(Lrs Of Late Narendra Lal Masih, Registered Owner Of Tractor No. Cg-10-D-4296).....(Non Applicant No.7), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Sarita Banjare W/o Late Rupchand @ Raju Banjare Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- And Post-Uslapur, Police Station- Chakarbhata, Tahsil Takhatpur, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Satrupa Banjare D/o Late Rupchand @ Raju Banjare Through Next Friend Smt. Sarita Banjare W/o Late Rupchand @ Raju Banjare, R/o Village- And Post Uslapur, Police Station- Chakarbhata, Tahsil- Takhatpur, Civil And Revenue District- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh......(Applicants), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Sanjay Kumar @ Daran Kenwat S/o Chhedilal Kenwat Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Lokhandi, Police Station- Koni (Wrongly Mentioned Sarkanda), Tahsil- Takhatpur, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.....(Driver Of Tractor No. C.G.-10-D-4296).... (Non Applicant No. 1), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Nandkumar Singh S/o D. Singh R/o Village- Newari, Post Malhar, Police Station- Masturi (Wrongly Mentioned Malhar), Tahsil- Masturi, Civil And Revenue Disrtict- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.... (Registered Owner Trolly No. C.G.-10-Zg-1236).... (Non Applicant No. 3), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Office Shop No. 345-347, 3rd Floor, Laalganga Shopping Maal, G.E. Road Raipur, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue Disrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh........(Insurance Company Tractor No. C.G.-10-D-4296).... (Non Applicant No. 4), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6. Rameshwar Prasad Banjare S/o Buchaau Ram Banjare Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Lokhndi, Police Station Koni (Wrongly Mentioned Sarkanda), Tahsil Takhatpur, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Village Kormi, (Basiya), Post- Kormi, Police Station- Chakarbhata, Tahsil, Civil 3 And Revenue District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.....(Non-Applicant No.5)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7. Smt. Gomti Bai W/o Rameshwar Banjare Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Lokhndi, Police Station Koni (Wrongly Mentioned Sarkanda), Tahsil Takhatpur, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Village Kormi, (Basiya), Post- Kormi, Police Station- Chakarbhata, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.....(Non-Applicant No.6)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2, 3 , 4,6 &7 : None. For Respondent(s) No. 5 : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 12.7.2018 passed by the learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 306/2014. 2. The appellant/owner has filed this appeal challenging the liability 4 fastened upon the owner while holding breach of insurance policy. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that the offending vehicle Tractor bearing No. C.G.-10-D-4296 was duly insured with the insurance company. He further submits that it was a comprehensive policy and as such upon any accident the insurance company would liable to pay compensation and the exoneration of the insurance company is not in accordance with law. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajni Devi & Others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Ramnivas Gupta vs. Sitaram & Others. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that though the insurance company has being exonerated in this case, however, considering this fact that the vehicle was duly insured as comprehensive policy as such the insurance company may be directed to pay the amount of compensation at the first instance and to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the deceased was traveling upon the mudguard of the tractor where there is no any siting provision. He further submits that in the engine of the tractor except driver there is no 5 any sitting capacity. He further submits that the evidence of the witnesses also goes to suggest that the deceased was sitting in the mudguard of the tractor. He further submits that except driver and owner no premium was paid for any person sitting in the tractor and as such the tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the owner and driver. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 7. From the facts and circumstances of this case, the aforesaid case laws which has been cited by the learned counsel for the appellant/owner is distinguishable and it cannot be taken into consideration. 8. The High Court of Madras in the matter of Ravunammaa vs. National Insurance Company Limited, 2006 SCC Online Mad 896 has observed as under:- “11. In the instant case, even as per the evidence of P.W.2, an eye witness to the accident who also happened to be a co-traveller, there was no separate seat as such for the cleaner who travelled in the mudguard. That being the case, it is clear that the deceased was seated in the mudguard only with the knowledge of the driver and for the mistake of allowing the cleaner to travel in the mudguard, the driver is to be held liable and in turn, the owner of the Tractor is to be made liable for the mistake 6 committed by his driver. Further, as already concluded in one of the earlier paragraphs, the Tractor driver is the cause for the accident and had he been careful, the accident could have been very well averted and the deceased would not have fallen on the road and would not have been run over by the Trailer attached to the Tractor.” 9. The High Court of Chhattisgarh in the matter of Rameshwar Kaushik and Others vs. Pramila Bai Loniya and Others passed in MAC No. 1065/2008, it has observed as under:- “27. Unless the owner of the vehicle has taken specific policy having paid the premium covering the risk of a third- party as well as the occupant, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation for any persons belonging to such category. The Insurance Company cannot be fastened with a liability for indemnifying those persons who are not covered under the policy. The contract of insurance must be taken by the owner of the vehicle in regard to the coverage of the risk of the category of the persons he intends to insure. This is imperative in nature. The insurance policy and the premium paid must be read and understood in the context with the terms and conditions of the policy if the Insurance Company has not insured the liability of death or bodily 7 injury of the person other than the owner and the driver, which-clearly means that there is no contract of insurance by the Insurance Company covering the risk of any person other than the owner and the driver.” 10. Similarly in the matter of Beer Narayan Singh vs. Ghanshyam passed in MAC No. 815/2004 & 978/2004, it has observed as under:- “27...... A passenger is not supposed to be carried in the tractor or trolley as there is no sitting capacity available in the tractor or trolley except for the driver. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation in a case of suffering injury or death of a person, who was travelling in the tractor or trolley as an unauthorised or gratuitous passenger. 28. Even in the registration certificate, the sitting capacity including the driver is shown to be one. Therefore, the insurance company was rightly absolved of the liability to pay compensation.” 11. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Malti Devi, 2017 SCC Online MP 1771, it has observed as under:- “7. It is apparent from the registration book of the tractor available on record as Ex. P/15(c) wherein it is mentioned 8 that the sitting capacity of the tractor has been mentioned as one including driver. Since the sitting capacity of the tractor has been mentioned as one in the registration certificate, which by implication means that there is no provision for a passenger to be accommodated on the tractor, and admittedly the fact of the case is that the deceased Ummed Singh was travelling on the mudguard of the tractor, he being a passenger was not covered as per the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan(supra), insurance company can not be saddled with the liability and has to be exonerated.” 12. From the perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that the deceased was traveling in the mudguard of the tractor and as such even if the vehicle was insured by comprehensive policy, there is clear cut breach of insurance policy as the engine of the tractor is having only one sitting capacity i.e. for the driver of the vehicle. No extra premium has been paid for any other person as such considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter the deceased who died while sitting in the mudguard of the tractor is a breach of insurance policy. 13. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. In the light of the above judgments, in the facts and circumstances of the case, applying the ratio of law 9 laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, I direct the insurance company/respondent No. 5 to first pay the amount of compensation fixed by the Tribunal and then to recover the same from the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle by filing execution petition before the concerned Claims Tribunal. 14. Records of the Claims Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 7.11.2025 15.1.2026 - 15.1.2026 Raghu Jat