1 / 8 2025:CGHC:28230 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1194 of 2019 • Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Office Gurukripa Towers, Vyapar Vihar Opposite Amber Automobile Bilaspur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Through Authorised Signatory Divisional Office, United India Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 3 versus 1. Puja Marko D/o Amol Singh Marko Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Madai Post Kotmi P.S. Pendra Tehsil Marvahi District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2. Amarnath Bramhe S/o Late Madan Lal Bramhe R/o Near Water Turnkey Amarpur Road Pendra Disrtict- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 3. Rakesh Kareliya S/o Dhanraj Kareliya R/o Ward No. 13, Near Water Trunkey Amarpur Road Pendra, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) --- Respondents WITH MAC No. 1170 of 2019 • Branch Managerm, United India Insurance Company Limited United India Insurance Company Limited Office Gurukripa Towers, Vyapar Vihar Opposite Amber Automobile Bilaspur District Bialspur, Chhattisgarfh Through Autorised Signatory Divisional Office, United India Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant/Non- applicant No. 3 Versus 1. Nigam Kenvat S/o Dahaniram Kenwat Aged About 35 Years PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 8 2. Minor Suraj Kumar S/o Nigam Kenwat Aged About 12 Years 3. Minor Ku. Sarojini D/o Nigvam Kenwat Minor Through Guardian Father Nigam Kenwat All above are R/o Village Sekhva (Gouthiyanpara) Police Outpost Kotmi Police Station And Tehsil Pendraroad, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Amarnath Bramhe S/o Late Madan Lal Bramhe R/o Near Water Tunkey Amarpur Road Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver) 5. Rakesh Kareliya S/o Dhanraj Dareliya R/o Ward No. 13, Near Water Trunkey Amarpur Road Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner) --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant-Insu.Co. : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate (in MAC No. 1194/2019) For Respondents No. 1 to 3 (in MAC No. 1170/2019) Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 26/06/2025 1. Appellant-Insurance Company has filed these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the awards dated 11.12.2018 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Cases No. 3/2018 & 23/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the applications filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded ₹ 55,000/- to applicant-injured Pooja Marko and ₹ 6,07,600/- to legal representatives of deceased Anusuiya Kenwat. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 29.07.2017 applicant Pooja Marko and Anusuiya Kenwat along with several other labourers had gone to Ravi Karelia Guruji's field Tendupara, Sikarpur to plant saplings in a vehicle Chota Hathi number CG 10 AG-1691 (henceforth “offending vehicle”) from village Madai. After completion of work, at around 3 / 8 6:30 in the evening, when they were returning to their home in the same vehicle ie., offending vehicle, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of offending vehicle, while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently met with an accident and overturned the vehicle. In the said accident, applicant Pooja Marko and Anusuiya Kenwat suffered grievous injuries over her person, they were admitted to Community Health Centre, Pendra on 29.07.2017. Looking to the serious injuiries, Anusuiya Kenwat was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur where during the course of treatment she died on 05.08.2017. A report of the accident was also reported to police station Pendra, based on which Crime No. 198/17 was registered for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC. 3. Application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 was filed before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of ₹ 12,51,000/- by applicant-injured Pooja Marko and ₹ 37,50,000/- by the legal representatives ie., husband and children of deceased Anusuiya Kenwat on the basis of pleadings made therein. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2/ driver and owner of the offending vehicle submitted reply to the claim application, denying all the adverse pleadings made therein it was further pleaded that no negligence or carelessness has been committed by non-applicant No. 1 and 2 in the said accident. On the date of the accident, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. Thus if there is any liability to pay compensation, it would be upon non-applicant No. 3. 5. Appellant-Non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company has also submitted reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made therein it was further pleaded that the offending vehicle is a goods carriage vehicle and in which no passengers are allowed to travel expect the driver and co- pilot, while on the date of accident, more than 15 workers were sitting in that 4 / 8 vehicle including the injured and the deceased. Driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. Thus there was breach of policy conditions and Insurance company is not liable for paying compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, recorded a finding that the applicant-claimant Pooja Marko and Anusuiya Kenwat met with an accident while travelling on the offending vehicle driven by Non-applicant No. 1. In the said accident, Pooja Marko suffered grievous injuries and Anusuiya Kenwat died, awarded total sum of ₹ 55,000/- in case of applicant Pooja Marko and ₹ 6,07,600/- in case of death of Anusuiya Kenwat. 7. Mr. B.N. Nande, learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company submits that the accident and injuries suffered by the claimant Kumari Pooja and death of Anusuiya Kenwat in a motor accident is not disputed. Issuance of insurance policy of the offending vehicle ie., Chhota Hathi CG10-AG-1691 is also not in dispute. The said vehicle met with an accident during currency of insurance policy is also not in dispute. Appellant-insurance company in its reply has taken a specific plea that the injured and the deceased along with about 15 persons were travelling on the goods carriage commercial vehicle which met with an accident and Pooja Marko suffered grievous injuries and Anusuiya succumbed to the injuries. The witnesses examined by the claimants have also admitted the fact of travelling about 15-16 person in the offending vehicle, however, the Claims Tribunal while deciding the issue recorded a finding that the insurance company failed to prove breach of policy conditions which is perverse to evidence available on record. 8. Mr. Aditya Khare, learned counsel for claimants in both the appeals would support the impugned award and would submit that the Claims Tribunal upon 5 / 8 appreciation of the pleadings and evidence has rightly held that the insurance company failed to prove breach of conditions of insurance policy. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case. 10. In the claim application claimants have pleaded that the offending vehicle is Chhota Hathi bearing No. CG10-AG-1691, the deceased and the injured have been shown to be travelling in the aforementioned vehicle and returning back to their home from agricultural field after completion of work of planting paddy saplings. According to F.I.R Ext. P-2 also it is apparent that occupants suffered motor accidental injuries while travelling on offending vehicle while returning from agricultural field. During investigation police seized Tata Ace, CG10-AG-1691 (offending vehicle). Copy of registration certificate of offending vehicle is available in record as Ext. D2-C. The aforesaid documents of criminal case is filed in MACT No. 23/2017 by the legal representatives of Anusuiya Kenwat. The policy is issued under the head of GCV Public Carrier other than three wheeler package policy. Name of vehicle is mentioned as Tata Motor/ Tata Face Lift HT BS 111 (New). From the conjoint reading of Ext. D2-C & D3 would show that according to certificate and registration of vehicle, it is registered as Light Goods Vehicle from which it is clearly reflecting that the vehicle involved in the accident is Light Goods Vehicle. Respondents No. 1 and 2 ie., driver and owner of the offending vehicle, had submitted reply, however, they have denied the fact of accident but have not made any averment with regard to class of vehicle. Even after submission of reply by the appellant-insurance company that the vehicle involved in the accident is Light Goods Vehicle has not submitted additional reply to the reply already filed. 11. The injured claimant in claim case No. 03/2018 and appeal MAC No. 1194 of 2019 to prove the claim application has examined herself as AW-1. In her 6 / 8 examination in chief she stated that on 29.07.2017 she along with other labourers went to paddy saplings on Chhota Hathi CG10-AG-1691 (offending vehicle) and while returning in the same vehicle along with others the vehicle met with an accident and turned turtle due to which she suffered injuries. This witness was cross examined by the learned counsel engaged by the non-applicants No. 1 & 2, however, no question has been put to her with regard to class of vehicle or to refute the statement that the injured was travelling in the goods vehicle/ offending vehicle. 12. Claims Tribunal while considering the ground raised by the appellant- insurance company while considering the issue of travelling 15-16 persons in the offending vehicle (goods vehicle) has observed that to prove the said fact, insurance company has not lead any evidence and further observed that even if it is admitted that at the time of accident 15-16 persons were travelling, from the policy it is not appearing that what was the sitting capacity of the vehicle. The said finding of the Claims Tribunal is perverse to the pleadings and the evidence available on record. In the pleadings of the claim application, claimants have pleaded that at the time of accident apart from claimant other persons were travelling on the offending vehicle while returning back to their home from agricultural filed. Similar is the evidence of claimant and her witnesses. The F.I.R. lodged is also on same facts. Claims Tribunal overlooked the aforediscussed pleadings and evidence in its true prospects and has recorded the perverse finding. 13. In the record, copy of registration of offending vehicle is also available as Ext. D-2C which clearly mentions the sitting capacity in the vehicle of two and class of vehicle to be a Light Goods Vehicle. Under the policy, risk of paid driver is only covered, travelling of passengers in goods vehicle is not permissible in law and therefore Claims Tribunal further erred in recording a finding that the insurance company failed to prove coverage of risk of person 7 / 8 in absence of proof of sitting capacity of the vehicle registered. This finding is also perverse in view of copy of policy Ext. D-4 and copy of registration certificate of the offending vehicle Ext. D-2C, available in record. 14. Tribunal further in para-8 of the award in death case while mentioning the finding of issue framed has recorded that breach of conditions of insurance policy have been found to be proved, however, in the body of the award it is recorded that the breach of conditions of insurance policy has not been proved, which is erroneous and is not sustainable. The said finding of Claims Tribunal on breach of policy conditions is not sustainable and it is set aside. 15. For the foregoing discussion, it is held that the vehicle involved in the accident is Light Goods Vehicle having sitting capacity of two. Appellant- insurance company has issued the policy covering the risk of paid driver only and therefore in the facts of the case, the vehicle at the time of accident was plying in breach of conditions of insurance policy. As the vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy, the insurance company is exonerated from its liability of satisfying the amount of compensation. 16. Considering the facts of the case as the insurance policy of the vehicle is not disputed, payment of premium is also not disputed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivaraj vs. Rajendra, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 432, where the Supreme Court taken note of the earlier decision with respect to issuance of a direction to insurance company to pay the amount of compensation with liberty to recover the same from owner and driver of offending vehicle and observed thus: "11. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant (appellant) with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2018 5 8 / 8 SCC 656, Rani vs. National insurance Co.Ltd. And including Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Sing. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent 2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to Respondent 2 insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, Respondent 1." 17. In the light of above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the beneficial object of the Act of 1988, it would be just and appropriate to apply the principle of 'pay and recover’, therefore, I find it appropriate to direct the insurance company to first satisfy the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of offending vehicle. 18. For recovery of the compensation so paid, appellant-Insurance Company is not required to file separate proceeding and can recover it in the execution proceeding by filing appropriate application, as held in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Nanjappan reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn