1 2025:CGHC:43735 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 718 of 2019 The New India Insurance Company Limited (Correct Name As Assurance) Through Branch Office, Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Durg Tahsil & District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Insurance Company versus 1 - Chinilal Gota S/o Chhaganlal Gota, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Vanpandel (Tumdikasa), Police Station Tahsil & District Balod (C.G.). 2 - Smt. Fuleshwari @ Ritu Fuleshwari @ Ritu W/o Chinilal Gota Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Vanpandel (Tumdikasa), Police Station Tahsil And District Balod (C.G.) 3 - Kumari Sandhya D/o Chinilal Gota Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Chinilal Gota, R/o Village Vanpandel (Tumdikasa), Police Station Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rajendra Kumar S/o Nammuram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Karhibhadar, Police Station, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - Bhaduram S/o Budharuram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Ghotiya, Tashil Dondi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents {Cause title is taken from Case Information System} For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. 2 Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : None appeared though served S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Judgment On Board 28/08/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant / Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) challenging the impugned award dated 30.01.2019 passed by First Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) {henceforth, 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 30/17. 2. By the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,30,000/- in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3/ claimants, who are unfortunate parents & sister of deceased – Saheed Kumar Gota, as compensation on account of his death in the motor accident that occurred on 2.3.2017 due to rash & negligent driving of Tractor-trolley bearing Registration No. C.G.05 G. -7415 & C.G.05G.-7488, respectively (offending vehicle) by its driver -Rajendra Kumar/respondent No. 4. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.23,80,000/- pleading inter alia that on 2.3.2017, deceased – Saheed Kumar Gota had gone to work as a labourer (majdoori) for loading soil and after dumping the soil in the field while returning back, near village Vanpandel playground, respondent No. 4 drove the said vehicle rashly & negligently and thereby tractor became uncontrolled, as a result thereof, deceased Shaid Kumar Gota, who was sitting in the trolley, fell down and sustained several injuries on his head & face and 3 succumbed to those injuries. The deceased was aged about 17 years old healthy young man at the time of accident, who used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month by working as Labourer and used to take care of his family. Therefore, the aforesaid amount compensation was claimed. 4. Respondent No. 4 /driver resisted the claim application denying the averments made in the claim application stating that he is not driver of the offending vehicle. While returning after unloading the soil, the vehicle went out of control due to a pit near the Vanpandel playground and dashed Shahid Kumar Gota, who was standing nearby, resulting in his death, whereas, appellant/Insurance Company took a plea that the assessment of compensation has been exaggerated, further, sitting capacity of Tractor is only one and trolley is not meant for the passengers sitting in the vehicle and there was no provision for anyone except the driver to sit in the Tractor and Insurance Company is not statutory liable to cover the risk of passenger sitting in the trolley nor had assumed such risk by charging extra premium thereof, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. Based on pleading of both the parties, learned Claims Tribunal framed as many as 6 issues and decided the same in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants and assessed & awarded aforesaid sum of compensation in their favour fastening liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Company. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to payment of compensation 4 upon the Insurance company is liable to be set aside. The learned Claims Tribunal given a finding that the deceased was sitting on the vehicle as agricultural labour for which the premium was also paid, is incorrect, as the Insurance Policy was exhibited by the witness of Insurance Company, which goes to show that no extra premium was charged to cover the risk of passengers sitting in the vehicle, as such, except the driver no other person can sit in the offending vehicle, therefore, the Insurance Company may be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 7. Despite services of notice, none present on behalf of the respondents. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and perused the documents available on record. 9. The core question which comes for determination before this Court is as to whether the Insurance Company can be exonerated from the payment of compensation ? 10. Issue No. 4 with regard to violation of Insurance policy was framed. The learned Tribunal on meticulous examination on the evidence though found that the deceased was sitting in the offending vehicle but stated that vehicle was being used for transportation of the soil (mitti) for agricultural purpose and the deceased was sitting on the offending vehicle as agricultural labour, for which, the premium was charged. 11. The witness of the Insurance Company namely- Banshi Lal was examined as NAW-1, who has exhibited the insurance policy (Ex. D/3). Perusal of which indicates that the offending vehicle was insured with appellant/Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has only charged third party premium of Rs. 3,972/- from the owner of the offending vehicle. It does not disclose that any premium was charged 5 for the labourer sitting the trolley as held by the learned Claims Tribunal. Apart from this, the finding has also been recorded that the deceased was sitting in the offending vehicle as a labourer. 12. The Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani and Others1, has held that Insurance Company is not required to cover the risk of the labourer passenger in the goods vehicle. This position was further highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Devireddy Konda Reddy and Others2, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar and Others3, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Others4 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others5. 13.It is also not disputed that sitting capacity of Tractor is only one and trolley is not meant for sitting passengers. Insurance policy (Ex. P/3) would reveal that appellant/insurance company has not undertaken the risk of passengers sitting in the Tractor-trolley by charging extra premium therefore, in the absence whereof, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation to the claimant. 14. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants is not based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record therefore, in my opinion, the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant. As such, part of the award by which the 1 2002 AIR SCW 5259 2 2003 (2) SCC 339 3 2003 (9) SCC 668 4 2004 (2) SCC 1 5 2005 (12) SCC 243 6 liability has been fastened upon the appellant/New India Assurance Company Limited to pay compensation to the claimants is liable to be and is hereby set aside. Now, the appellant/Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. 15. Taking into consideration the benevolent nature of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also in light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others6, and considering the welfare of the claimants, this Court feels it proper to order for “pay and recover” in this case. Hence, appellant/ New India Assurance Company Limited is directed to first pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 16.Appellant/insurance company is entitled to recover the amount deposited by it & disbursed to the claimants, if any, from the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No. 5 by filing execution petition before the concerned claims Tribunal. 17. The misc. appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput,) Judge Ami 6 (2017) 4 SCC 796 AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.04 18:04:19 +0530