1 2025:CGHC:31967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 748 of 2023  Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager Present Address Office No. 501 And 512, 5th Floor, D. B. City Corporate Park, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Suresh S/o Purshottam Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Dhawarapara, Ramnagar, Surajpur Police Station Bishrampur Post Bishrampur Tahsil Surajpur .........Claimants, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Manmati W/o Suresh Giri Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Dhawarapara, Ramnagar, Surajpur Police Station Bishrampur Post Bishrampur Tahsil Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Bijendra Kumar Singh S/o Ram Pratap Singh Aged About 30 Years Occupation Owner Pick-Up Vehicle No. U. P. 64/ T 6843, R/o Village Baigapara Rampur, Surajpur, Police Station And Post Bishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur Pin 497226 .........Owner, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4. Ankesh Kumar Singh S/o Ram Pratap Singh Aged About 27 Years Occupation Driver R/o Village Baigapara Rampur, Surajpur, Police Station And Post Bishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur Pin- 497226 .........Driver, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Ashish Biswas, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10. 07.2025 1. The appellant/Insurance company has filed this appeal against an award SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.11 14:43:13 +0530 2 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 155/2021 dated 20.10.2022, whereby the claim case filed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 has partly been allowed, and an award of Rs. 10,88,400/- with interest at the rate of 7% has been passed. 2. The facts of the present case are that the claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 are the mother and father of the deceased namely, Vivek Giri, aged about 19 years, who was working as a helper with respondent No. 3 in vehicle No. UP 64 T 6843. The vehicle met with an accident on 19.05.2021 while it was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver/respondent No. 4. The offending vehicle got overturned and consequently, the deceased died on the spot. Respondents No. 1 & 2/claimants further pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,96,000/-. 3. Respondents No. 3 & 4, the driver and owner of the vehicle filed their reply and denied the averments made in the claim case. The Insurance company also filed a reply, wherein a specific plea was taken that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. The learned tribunal framed issues, the parties led evidence and thereafter, the learned tribunal passed the award as described in the opening para. 4. Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the appellant/Insurance company would submit that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle; therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. He would further submit that the goods vehicle was not insured for the passengers who were traveling in the vehicle. He would also submit that the claimants failed to prove the fact that the deceased 3 was working as a helper along with the driver of the offending goods vehicle. He would contend that a witness was examined by the Insurance company, which has proved these facts. He would pray to set aside the award passed by the learned tribunal, whereby the liability has been fastened with the Insurance company. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Biswas, Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2/claimants would oppose and submit that the witness examined by the Insurance company has categorically stated that no investigation was conducted with regard to the engagement of the deceased as a helper in the offending vehicle. He would further submit that the claimants have proved the fact that the deceased was working as a helper in the said vehicle and findings have been recorded by the learned tribunal in this regard. He would also submit that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Sajal Gupta, Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 3 & 4 would support the award passed by the learned tribunal. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 8. Mr. Gupta has raised the argument that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Witness No. 2, namely Keshav Singh Thakur was examined by the Insurance company, who stated that the risk of driver and helper was covered as per the Insurance policy. This witness further stated that he was not an eye witness and in para 6, he admitted the fact that no investigation was conducted to prove the fact that the deceased was not working as a helper in the offending vehicle. 9. AW/1, Suresh, the father of the deceased has proved the contents of the 4 claim case. AW/2, Bhuwan Giri, an independent witness on the affidavit has stated that the deceased was working as a helper in the offending vehicle. PW/3, Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju, has proved the fact that Vivek Giri (deceased) died in an accident. 10. The owner and driver submitted their evidence on affidavits but they were not cross-examined. In the affidavit, they stated that the deceased was working as a helper in the offending vehicle. 11. Taking into consideration the above piece of evidence, in my opinion, the learned tribunal has rightly rejected the contention made by the Insurance company and I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned tribunal. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 12. Interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant