1 2025:CGHC:35203 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 238 of 2021 1 - Iffco Tokio Insurance Company Limited Shop No. 2-5, 2nd Floor, M.M.Silver, Bhawan, Ring Road No.1, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Through - Branch Manager, Having Its Raipur Office 205, 2nd Floor, M.M. Silver Plaza, In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Near Mining Office, Ring Road No.1, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Botiram Yadav S/o Late Mahangu Aged About 45 Years 2 - Smt. Budhri Yadav W/o Botiram Yadav Aged About 44 Years 3 - Dilip Yadav S/o Botiram Yadav Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Botiram Yadav S/o Late Mahangu Yadav, R/o Village Pendalnar, P.S. Gadhiraas, District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Bhairsingh Hillhare S/o Chainlal Hillhare Aged About 33 Years R/o Toya Gondhi, Post- Darekasa, P.S. Sadhekasa, Present Address- A.V.A. Buildcon, Private Limited Company, Near Anupam Nagar, Near T.V. Tower, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - A.V.A. Buildcon Private Limited Company, Near Anupam Nagar, T.V. Tower, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. -----Respondents For Appellant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Resp. No.1 to 3 : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 22/07/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.02 14:50:15 +0530 2 the impugned award dated 06.02.2021, passed in Claim Case No.83 of 2017, whereby the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) while exonerating the appellant/Insurance to satisfy the amount of compensation has issued direction to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application U/s.166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants, seeking compensation of Rs.19,54,500/- against the death of Sukman Yadav, who died in a road accident pleading that on the date of accident i.e. on 23.09.2017, Sukman Yadav, was traveling in the offending vehicle tractor bearing registration No. CG-04-LW-3138, attached to a trolley bearing No. APU/2542. Upon reaching the vicinity of Village Kodali Tadpara, non-applicant No.1, while driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, caused an accident. As a result, Sukman Yadav sustained fatal injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. 3. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 jointly filed their reply to the application, wherein they admitted that the deceased, Sukman Yadav, died as a result of the road accident, also acknowledged that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was seated in the trolley attached to the tractor. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle was duly insured with Non-applicant No.3 at the time of incident, and that the vehicle was being driven in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 3 4. Non-applicant No.3, the Insurance Company, filed its reply to the application and denied the averments made therein. It was pleaded that, on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being operated in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was specifically pleaded that in tractor-trolley seating capacity is for only one person i.e. the driver. The vehicle is not authorized to carry any additional workers or passengers. Therefore, if the driver or owner allows any other person to travel in the vehicle, it constitutes a clear breach of the policy conditions. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal, upon considering the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, partly allowed the claim application in part, held that there was breach of conditions of policy conditions, and awarded compensation of ₹12,79,600/- exonerating Insurance Company from its liability, held Non-applicants No.1 and 2 (owner and driver) liable to satisfy the award. However, the Insurance Company was directed to first pay the compensation and thereafter to recover the amount from Non-applicants No.1 and 2. 6. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in issuing the direction to the appellant/Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle even after recording a finding that the offending vehicle was driven in breach of policy conditions, as on the date of accident, deceased was travelling on the trolley attached with the tractor. He submits that as there is no sitting capacity in the tractor, no premium is charged for the occupant of the trolley, hence, the 4 insurance company could not be held liable to pay the amount of compensation. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in case of Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Phoolsingh Kurram, reported in LAWS (Chh) 2020 7 40 and in case of National Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Anjani Bai & Ors., in MAC No. 188 of 2015, decided on 12.01.2021. 7. Learned counsel for respondents/claimants opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has taken note of the fact that there was breach of policy conditions as the deceased himself was travelling in the trolley attached to the tractor, therefore, the insurance company has been exonerated from its liability to satisfy the award, however, considering the interest of the claimants has issued direction of pay and recover. He also submits that he is not pressing the cross-appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case. 9. In the facts of the case it is not in dispute that learned Claims tribunal considering that there was breach of conditions of the insurance policy as the deceased was travelling on the trolley attached to the tractor had exonerated the insurance company, however, to protect the interest of the claimants had issued a direction to the appellant/Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation and recover the same. The said direction in the opinion of this Court is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kr. Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 796 as also the 5 decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shivraj Vs. Rajendra & Another, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 432. 10. For the forgoing discussions, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal issuing direction of pay and recover. 11. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram