-1- 2025:CGHC:41771 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1100 of 2019 Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhamtari M B Trade Center Near Ghadi Chowk Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh --- Appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Surekha Yadav W/o Shri Roopram Yadav Aged About 30 Years 2 - Ku. Garima Yadav D/o Roopram Yadav Aged About 2 ½ Years Through Guardian Mother Smt. Surekha Yadav Both R/o Village Bhatheli, Post Office And Thana Bhkhara Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 3 - Hiraram Sahu S/o Late Ramadhin Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Bhatheli, Post Office And Thana Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1097 of 2019 Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhamtari M.B. Trade Center Near Ghadi Chowk Dhamtari, Tehsil And District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Usha Sahu W/o Shri Sudama Sahu Aged About 40 Years Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.09.23 10:53:17 +0530 -2- Resident Village Bhatheli, Post Office Bhakhara Tehsil Kurud District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Hiraram Sahu S/o Late Ramdhin Sahu Aged About 51 Years Resident Village Bhatheli, Post Office And Thana Bhakhara Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants/ : Ms. Prerana Agrawal, Advocate on behalf Insurance Company of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Claimant/Resp. No.1 : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate on behalf of in MAC 1097 2019 Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Resp. No.3/Owner : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate and Driver ___________________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 19/08/2025 1. As both the appeals arise out of same accident and filed by appellant- Insurance Company challenging the liability fastened upon it to satisfy the award of compensation vide impugned award dated 15.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Link Court -Kurud, District- Dhamtari (CG) in Claim Case No.138 of 2018 and Claim Case No.137 of 2017, both the appeals are heard and decided together by this common judgment. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of these two appeals are that on 15.04.2017, claimants- Surekha Yadav and Ku. Garima in Claim Case No.138/2018 and subject matter of MAC No.1100 of 2019, claimant – Usha Sahu in Claim Case No. 137/2017 subject matter of MAC No.1097 of 2019 were traveling with others on four-wheeler bearing registration No. CG 04 JD-7864 (hereinafter referred to as “offending -3- vehicle)” and going to attend marriage function to village Gokulpur, Dhamtari. On the way, offending vehicle which is a goods carriage vehicle overturned and passengers traveling in the said vehicle suffered grievous injuries. They were taken to hospital and thereafter separate claim applications were filed as mentioned above by claimants seeking compensation on the ground as mentioned therein. 3. Non-applicant No.1/owner and driver of offending vehicle submitted reply to claim application denying the pleadings made therein. He denied the accident with his vehicle and further pleaded that offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.2 Insurance Company and therefore liability to satisfy the amount of compensation if any would be upon non- applicant No.2. 4. Non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company also submitted its reply denying the pleadings made in claim application and further pleaded that offending vehicle was being plied without there being any valid registration, valid permit and fitness and as such vehicle was being plied in breach of policy condition. It was also pleaded that offending vehicle is a goods carriage vehicle, it met with accident while carrying passengers and hence prays for its exoneration from liability to satisfy amount of compensation. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving by non-applicant No.1, breach of policy conditions were not held to be proved, allowed both the claim applications in part and awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to -4- claimants in Claim Case No.138 of 2018 and Rs.25,000/- to claimant in Claim Case No.137 of 2018 and fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation to non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company. 6. Learned counsel for appellant- Insurance Company would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that there was no breach of policy conditions. She submits that offending vehicle is a goods carriage vehicle and as per pleadings made in claim application at the time of accident claimant/injured were travelling on the offending vehicle along with others. It is also contention of learned counsel for the appellant that claimant /insured were travelling on platform of offending vehicle i.e. space for carrying goods and not in cabin. There is no seating space for any person and therefore persons travelling in goods carriage vehicle sitting on its platform even otherwise is not permissible under the law. Referring to Ex.PD-2 C, she submits that according to registration certificate of offending vehicle, offending vehicle is registered as light goods vehicle, body type- Truck ( open body) and seating capacity of vehicle is mentioned as 2. She also submits that according to insurance policy Ex.PD-5 also offending vehicle is Tata Ace HT, open body, in which passengers cannot be carried. Seating capacity mentioned in insurance policy is 2 including driver. She contended that in the aforementioned facts of case, as non- applicant No.1 has carried the passengers in a goods carriage vehicle, it is a breach of policy conditions and hence insurance company should not be held liable to pay amount of compensation. In support of her contention, she places reliance upon the decision in case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC -5- 223 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 423. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 driver cum owner of the offending vehicle opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company and submits that according to insurance policy premium was paid for two labourers/workers and therefore insurance company would be liable to satisfy the amount of compensation against two claims. He further submitted that in the event this Court comes to conclusion that there was breach of policy conditions then direction be issued to appellant insurance company to pay and recover. 8. Learned counsel for respondent -claimant would support the impugned award. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of claim case. 10. Offending vehicle Tata Ace HT Open Body owned by non-applicant No.1 is not in dispute. According to registration certificate class of vehicle to be light goods vehicle is also not in dispute. 11. Perusal of registration and copy of insurance policy available in record of claim case No.138 of 2017 as Ex.PD-2C and Ex.PD-5 it is apparent that seating capacity including driver is only 2. According to pleading made in claim application on the date of accident claimants along with other women of village were going to attend marriage ceremony on offending vehicle which is a goods carriage vehicle. According to decision in case of Asha Rani (supra) carrying passengers is not -6- permissible even if they are owner or representative of goods or employee of employer. Claimant- Surekhka (AW1) in her evidence has clearly stated that they were going to Gokulpur, Dhamtari from village Bhateli to attend marriage function on the offending vehicle. About 25 persons were travelling at the time of accident and the said vehicle was not the passenger vehicle. In para-12 of her deposition she also submits that she was travelling on platform of vehicle. 12. In view of above evidence available on record and decision in case of Asha Rani (supra) and Bharatamma (supra), in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that there was no breach of policy conditions only on the ground that premium for two labourers were paid without taking note of fact that, status of claimant were not of labourers and even otherwise they were not travelling in cabin. Said finding is perverse to the evidence available on record and therefore it is not sustainable and it is accordingly set aside. 13. As this Court has held that offending vehicle was plied by non-applicant No.1 in breach of policy conditions, insurance company is exonerated from its liability to indemnify the insured and now non-applicant No.1/owner- cum-driver of offending vehicle will be liable to pay amount of compensation. 14. For the foregoing discussions, both the appeals are allowed. Impugned award is modified to the extent and in the manner indicated above. If any amount of compensation is deposited by appellant- insurance company then insurance company will be at liberty to recover the same from non-applicant No.1/driver-cum-owner of offending vehicle, in -7- accordance with law. 15. Both the appeals are accordingly allowed. Impugned orders passed in both the appeals are modified to the extent and in the manner indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen