1 2025:CGHC:17733 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1534 of 2017 {Arising out of award dated 08.08.2017 passed in Claim Case No.02/2015 by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gariyaband} Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. R. K. Plaza Pachpedinaka Ring Road No.1, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Through Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Rama Trade Center, Opposite Rajiv Plaza Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tehsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Chhattisgarh ….....Insurer .... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Santoshi, W/o. Late Bharat Nishad, Aged About 23 Years, R/o. Village Koliyari, Police Station Gobranawapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Vivek, S/o. Late Bharat Nishad, Aged About 8 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Santoshi, W/o. Late Bharat Nishad, R/o. Village Koliyari. Police Station Gobranawapara. District Raipur. Chhattisgarh. ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.04.21 16:43:29 +0530 2 3 - Minor Mukesh, S/o. Late Bharat Nishad, Aged About 5 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Santoshi, W/o. Late Bharat Nishad, R/o. Village Koliyari, Police Station Gobranawapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Agnibai, W/o. Khorbahra Nishad, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Village Koliyari, Police Station Gobranawapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 – Khorbahara, S/o. Bodhan Nishad, Aged About 55 Years, R/o. Village Koliyari, Police Station Gobranawapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ……….Claimants 6 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu, S/o. Pardeshi Ram Sahu, Aged About 43 Years, R/o. CSantra Badi, Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil & District Durg Chhattisgarh. ..........Driver Cum Owner 7 - Smt. Seema Sahu, W/o. Mahendra Sahu, Aged About 38 Years, R/o. CSantra Badi, Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...........Co- Owner …... Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents No.6 & 7 : None present (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal 3 Judgment on Board (17.04.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the impugned award dated 08.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband, in Claim Case No.02/2015, by which the learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim filed against the respondent No.1 and fastened the liability upon the appellant/ Insurance Company holding that, on the date of incident, the respondent No.6 had driven the offending vehicle rashly & negligently, which was insured by the appellant herein. 2. The learned Claims Tribunal after conducting the enquiry granted compensation to the tune of Rs.15,18,608/- along- with 6% interest from the date of presentation of claim i.e. 20.01.2015 finding that the respondent No.6 had driven the vehicle owned by respondent No.7 very rashly & negligently, which was insured by the appellant/Insurance Company, which caused the death of Bharat Nishad. 4 3. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company submits that the appellant has not challenged the quantum of compensation, but only challenged that the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, as the deceased was gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle and he relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Manuara Khatun & Ors vs Rajesh Kr. Singh & Ors1 and submits that the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 4. Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents No.1 to 5 would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal relying upon the statement of the eye-witnesses Rajjuram (AW-2) and Driver Mahendra Kumar (NAW-1) came to the conclusion that the deceased was pedestrian and, as such, the principles of law laid down in Manuara Khatun (supra) would not apply and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 1 (2017) 4 SCC 796 5 6. The only contention which has been raised on behalf of the appellant/ Insurance Company is that the deceased was gratuitous passenger and sitting in the offending truck and, as such, the Insurance Company is not responsible, which is apparent from the contents of the FIR (Ex.P-2). However, the learned Claims Tribunal in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment has clearly recorded a finding that the deceased was pedestrian and the respondent No.6 while driving the offending vehicle rashly & negligently dashed the deceased by which he suffered grievous injuries and died and did not rely upon the FIR (Ex.P-2). 7. On behalf of the appellant/ Insurance Company, Ritesh Kumar Rahandale, Administrative Officer was examined and on the basis of the FIR, he has stated that the deceased was sitting in the offending vehicle; whereas his information is based on the FIR (Ex.P-2), which the learned Claims Tribunal has not relied upon and on the basis of statement of Rajjuram (AW-2) and Mahendra Kumar (NAW-1) clearly came to the conclusion that the deceased was pedestrian and the offending truck, which was driven by the respondent No.6 rashly & negligently, has dashed him, by which he suffered grievous injuries and died. As such, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that the 6 deceased was pedestrian and he was not sitting in the offending vehicle is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. Since no other point has been raised in this appeal, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok