-1- 2025:CGHC:29901 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 557 of 2020 Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Ambedkar Chowk, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. Appellant (Respondent No. 3) (Insurer ) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Batni, Wd/o Late Sh. Parman Kindo, Aged About 48 Years R/o Nalapara, Gangapur, Ambikapur, Tehsil - Ambikapur, P.S. - Gandhinagar, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Original R/o Village - Madguri, Police Station And Tehsil - Kusmi, District - Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 1 (Applicant No. 1) (Claimant ), 2 - Manesh Ram Kindo, S/o Late Sh. Parman Kindo, Aged About 36 Years R/o Nalapara, Gangapur, Ambikapur, Tehsil - Ambikapur, Police Station - Gandhinagar, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Original R/o Village - Madguri, Police Station And Tehsil - Kusmi, District - Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 2 (Applicant No. 2) (Claimant ) 3 - Indra Sai Kindo, S/o Late Sh. Parman Kindo, Aged About 32 Years R/o Nalapara, Gangapur, Ambikapur, Tehsil - Ambikapur, Police Station - Gandhinagar, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Original R/o Village - Madguri, Police Station And Tehsil - Kusmi, District - Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 3 (Applicant No.3) (Claimant ) 4 - Akanksha, D/o Late Sh. Parman Sai Kindo, Aged About 28 Years W/o Ravi Basant Toppo, Aged About 28 Years, R/o House No. 68, Rajakpara, Sirsi, Police Station - Basdei, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 4 (Applicant No. 4) (Claimant ) 5 - Kishun Ram, S/o Loya Ram, Aged About 39 Years Caste - Uraon, R/o Darripara, Kusmi, Police Station - Kusmi, District - Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 5 (Non- Applicant No. 1) (Driver) 6 - Kaushal Kumar Khalkho, S/o Lundru Ram, Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 17, Village - Jaamkani, Sitapur, Police Station Sitapur, District Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.11 10:40:44 +0530 -2- - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 6 (Non - Applicant No. 2) (Owner ) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Resp. No. 5 & 6 : Mr. Anuj Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 02/07/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by the appellant/insurance company challenging award of compensation passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur District- Sarguja (CG) vide award dated 2nd November 2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.109 of 2019. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 4 /claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (CG) pleading therein that on 15/04/2018, Parman Sai Kindo was going to his farm carrying cow dung manure in the tractor, when he got down from the tractor and was showing the way, the driver of the tractor i.e. non-applicant No.1 driving the tractor rashly and negligently dashed Parman Sai Kindo and caused an accident. In the said accident, Parman Sai Kindo got seriously injured and was taken to the hospital for treatment, but he died on the way. Parman Sai Kindo was about 52 years old and was posted as a Peon in the Women and Child Development Department, Balrampur, from where he -3- used to take care of the applicants by drawing a salary of Rs. 28,084/- per month and earning an income of Rs. 4 lakhs per year from agricultural work. But due to his untimely death in a motor vehicle accident, the applicants have suffered an irreparable loss and they have been deprived of the benefits of the said dependency. The claimants prayed for a total compensation amount of Rs.87,13,703/- (eighty seven lakhs, thirteen thousand, seven hundred, three rupees only) from the non-applicants separately or jointly. 3. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 in their joint reply, opposed the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that the applicants have made a false claim by involving non-applicant No.1 in this case. On the date of accident, the tractor of non-applicant No.2 was insured with non-applicant No.3 and non-applicant No.1 had a valid and effective license to drive the tractor. The deceased was a drunkard and his death occurred due to falling under the influence of alcohol. 4. Non-applicant No.3/ insurance company in its reply stated that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid and effective driving license. The tractor was only insured and registered for agricultural purposes of own use but at the time of the accident the tractor was being used to transport manure on rent. No other person other than the driver could be seated in the tractor, insurance policy has not been issued covering the risk of any other person. The deceased was travelling in the tractor at the time of the accident and died due to falling from the tractor. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, -4- caused accident, in which Parman Sai Kindo suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy has not been found proved, held non-applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the deceased as Rs.28,084/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.29,12,103/ - which is put to challenge by the Insurance Company in this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon appellant-Insurance Company to satisfy the award overlooking the fact and evidence available on record of claim case that deceased himself was one of the occupant of the tractor and he suffered motor accidental injury while travelling in the tractor as is reflecting from the contents of FIR and other document of charge sheet and further from the investigation report submitted by the Investigator appointed by the appellant/Insurance Company. Copy of document of criminal case i.e. final report is also exhibited as Ex.P-1, FIR as Ex.P-2 and copy of investigation report is also produced in evidence as Ex.D-2. He next contended that as risk of any other person except the driver is not covered under the policy, insurance company cannot be held liable to satisfy amount of compensation. He further submits that as there is no seating capacity of any other person in tractor except the driver, travelling of a person on tractor will be breach of policy conditions. He lastly contended that learned Claims Tribunal fell into error that tractor was being used for the agricultural purpose, however, at the time of accident, it was being used for commercial purpose. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respective respondents would -5- oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that claimants to prove the motor accidental injury suffered by deceased has placed on record the document of criminal case, like final report and the FIR along with others. The accident is not disputed by learned counsel for appellant. He next contended that the disputed facts which is raised by learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the documents of criminal case has not been proved in accordance with law. Merely placing of document on record of claim case itself will not become admissible piece of evidence. He next contended that from pleading itself it is reflecting that vehicle at the time of accident was transporting manure and going to agricultural field and therefore use of vehicle was for agricultural purpose. Appellant/ insurance company has not led any evidence to prove plea taken in this appeal that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. There is no evidence to suggest that vehicle was being plied for hire and reward. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of claim case. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has made twofold submission before this Court. His first is that deceased himself was one of the occupant of the tractor when it met with an accident and succumbed to motor accidental injuries and therefore when there is breach of conditions of insurance policy and further that there is no premium paid for occupant except the driver of the vehicle, no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company to satisfy the award of compensation. His second submission is that the offending tractor was being used for commercial -6- purpose whereas it was registered and insured for agricultural purpose. 10. Perusal of the pleadings made in the claim application would show that claimants have very specifically and categorically pleaded that though the deceased travelled to some distance on the tractor trolley however before accident he boarded down from tractor and was walking in front of tractor showing path/road and at that relevant time he came under the tractor and suffered motor accidental injuries resulting in his death. To prove pleadings made in the claim application claimants have examined claimant No.1 as AW1 (wife of deceased). Though the insurance company has taken a plea that the deceased at the time of accident was sitting on the tractor, however, they have not brought on record any clinching evidence in this regard. They have not examined author of the document i.e. final report and FIR or any other document of criminal case enclosed along with final report nor the investigating officer of criminal case has been examined . The Investigator examined by the insurance company as NAW2 in his evidence before Tribunal has stated that he has submitted his report based on contents of FIR/final report and documents of criminal case. He also stated that he also recorded statement of wife of deceased. However, along with investigation report, it is not submitted and exhibited. Had the insurance company relied upon the statement of wife of deceased AW1, they could have confronted with the said statement to AW1. In absence of such proceedings adopted and document i.e. statement of wife of deceased available on record, oral evidence of NAW 2 in this regard will not be admissible piece of evidence in proof of the fact of which he himself is not witness. 11. Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Nanhu -7- Singh Vs. Jaheer reported in 2005 (1) MPWN 91 while considering the evidentiary value of document of criminal case in proceedings before Claims Tribunal for deciding claim case observed that “in view of the aforesaid, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R. is incorrect, unsound and in a way paves the path of vitiation. The Tribunal had erred by relying on the F.I.R. as if it was the gospel truth or to put it differently, as if it was comparable to Einsteinean theory. In view of the aforesaid, we are not disposed to concur with the aforesaid finding and accordingly dislodge the same”. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chamundeswari & Ors. (2021) 18 SCC 596 while considering the issue with regard to admissibility of contents of FIR in evidence before the Tribunal has observed that the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of FIR and held as under: “8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, had taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW 1 herself travelled in the very car and PW 3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the first information report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of -8- the first information report.” 13. Considering the afore-discussed facts of case and the decision as referred to above, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error and there is no infirmity in the impugned award recording a finding that the deceased was not the occupant of vehicle. 14. So far as the second submission of learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company that vehicle on the date of accident was being used for commercial purpose is also not proved by placing cogent evidence in this regard. Insurance Company has not examined any witness or brought any evidence before the Claims Tribunal to prove the fact that vehicle at the time of accident was being plied for higher and reward. 15. The provision under Rule 97 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1994”) deals with carriage of persons in goods carriage. Rule 97 (7) of the Rules of 1994 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2) but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) such tractor-trailer other than those registered in the name of industrial organisation. Municipal Institutions, water supply institution and non-agricultural cooperative societies, and the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7300 kgs. may be used for the purposes carrying labourers and the member of the family of agriculturist for the purpose of agriculture or any purpose connected with agriculture including sale and purchase of articles or agriculture. 16. In view of the afore- discussed facts of the case the appellant-insurance company has not brought any evidence to prove that at the time of accident, -9- offending vehicle was not being used for agricultural purpose but for commercial purpose. Further considering the provision of Rule 97 (7) of the Rules of 1994, second submission of learned counsel or the appellant/insurance company is not acceptable. Accordingly it is rejected. 17. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen