1 2025:CGHC:41877 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 783 of 2019 Micro Branch The New India Assurance Company Limited Branch Office- Lohara Road, Balod, Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Sunita Patwa Wd/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Pat Aged About 38 Years 2 – Virendra Kumar Patwa S/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Patwa Aged About 17 Years 3 - Rupesh Kumar Patwa S/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Patwa Aged About 15 Years No.2 and 3 both are Minors, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Patwa, R/o Pandepara, Ward No.5, Balod, Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh.................(Claimants), 4 - Ishwar Dewangan S/o Shri Shantilal Dewangan Aged About 36 Years 5 - Dhanraj Dewangan S/o Shri Shantilal Dewangan Aged About 32 Years No.4 and 5 both are R/o Pandepara, Ward No.6, Balod, Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh...............(Non-Applicant No.2), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.23 16:32:32 +0530 2 For Respondents No. 5 : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 19/08/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 25.01.2019, passed in Claim Case No. 49 of 2018, whereby learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 by claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,80,000/-, fastening liability to satisfy the amount of compensation on non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company/appellant. 2. Appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging its liability fastened upon it to satisfy the award of compensation, contending that there was a breach of the policy conditions inasmuch as deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger on the platform of the vehicle at the time of the accident. In view of the nature of the grounds raised by learned counsel for the appellant and the facts not being disputed, this Court does not deem it necessary to advert to the detailed facts as pleaded in the claim petition and the reply submitted by non-applicants. 3. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that on the date of accident there was no breach of policy condition. She submits that to arrive at such finding, learned Claims Tribunal has considered that 3 deceased was travelling along with goods. She submits that 14 persons were travelling on the offending vehicle at the time of accident and as per evidence of claimant No.1 – Sunita Patwa (AW-1) all of them were going to fair for selling of cosmetic articles (Manihari), which is unbelievable. She submits that even if deceased to be treated as owner of goods, then also he cannot travel on platform of vehicle along with goods in the goods vehicle. In support of her contention, she placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Vs. Rattani & Ors., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 75. It is contention of learned counsel for appellant that as deceased was gratuitous passenger traveling on the platform of the goods vehicle, therefore, there was breach of policy conditions, hence, Insurance Company be exonerated from liability to satisfy amount of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.5 (owner of offending vehicle) opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal is on appreciation of facts and also taking note of the decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Resham Bai Vs. Jabbar, reported in 2009 (4) MPLJ 426. The award under challenge is on appreciation of evidence, hence, it does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused record of claim case. 6. Claimants in claim application filed under Section 166 of the Act,1988 have pleaded that deceased Vijay Kumar boarded on the vehicle C.G.- 07-CA-7895 along with his goods and going to village Chipara. On the 4 way, said vehicle Tata (S) (Chhota Hathi) overturned due to which, Vijay Kumar travelling on the offending vehicle crushed under the vehicle suffered grievous injuries and died during course of treatment. Copy of FIR is also placed on record as Ex.P-3. FIR is lodged by Ashwani Nirmalkar, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Department on 21.01.2018 at about 18.15 hours i.e. in the evening of date of accident. In the FIR there is mention that about 14 peoples were travelling on offending vehicle including children. After investigation, Police also filed final report, in which there is mention that deceased boarded on offending vehicle along with his goods of Manihari (cosmetics). Sunita Patwa (AW-1) in her evidence has stated that her husband has booked the offending vehicle (Chhota Hathi) for transporting the cosmetics goods. In cross-examination she admitted that deceased with witness and other persons were travelling on platform of offending vehicle along with goods. From the pleadings made in the claim application and evidence of Sunita Patwa (AW-1) it is crystal clear that deceased at the time of accident was traveling on platform of offending vehicle which is a goods vehicle. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal only taking note of decision in case of Resham Bai Vs. Jabbar (supra) and decision in case of Kandhi @ Kanhaiyalal Sahu Vs. Govind Singh, reported in 2004 (3) MPLJ 227 came to conclusion that owner of goods can travel along with goods in platform of goods vehicle, therefore, there was no breach of policy condition. The said finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal is erroneous. The issue of persons travelling on the goods vehicle was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance 5 Company Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and Others, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1, relying on the judgment in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223 and observed thus :- “20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.” 8. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 423 again Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue whether owner of goods can travel along with goods in goods vehicle on platform and observed in para 19 and 20, which reads as under :- “19. It is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle. 20. In this case, the High Court had proceeded on the basis that they were gratuitous passengers. The admitted plea of the respondents themselves was that the deceased had boarded the lorry and paid an amount of Rs 20 as transport charges. It has not been proved that the deceased was travelling in the lorry along with the driver 6 or the cleaner as the owner of the goods. Travelling with the goods itself does not entitle anyone to protection under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act.” 9. In case of Rattani & Ors (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon decision in case of Asha Rani (Supra) and Cholleti Bharatamma (supra) held that “in the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the victims of the accidents were travelling in the truck as gratuitous passengers and in that view of the matter, the appellant herein was not liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.” 10. In the case at hand also as per pleadings made by claimants, deceased along with others were travelling on the platform of offending goods vehicle, in breach of policy conditions. Even if owner of goods is to travel in the same vehicle then he could have traveled in the cabin of the vehicle, which from the evidence of Sunita Patwa (AW-1) is not reflecting. 11. For the foregoing, finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal that there is no breach of policy condition is not sustainable and accordingly it is set-aside. Consequence of aforementioned view taken by this Court of breach of policy condition, appellant/Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to satisfy amount of compensation and now liability to pay amount of compensation will be upon non-applicant No.2/respondent No.5. 12. Appellant/Insurance Company has already deposited 75% of the award of amount of compensation pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court dated 29.04.2019. Now liability to deposit entire 7 amount of compensation is upon respondent No.5/non-applicant No.2. Appellant/Insurance Company will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for recovery of the amount so paid by it in the same proceedings from respondent No.5, owner of offending vehicle upon depositing the amount of compensation by respondent No.5 first balance amount of compensation is to be paid to claimants than to the appellant/Insurance Company. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram