1 2025:CGHC:22565 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on 21/04/2025 Judgment Passed on 09/06/2025 MAC No. 1045 of 2018 1 - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mohba Bazar, Maruti Heights, 4th Floor, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Babu Ramlu Maadi S/o Shri Ramlu Maadi, Aged About 47 Years R/o Room No. 268, Chaal No. 9, Panther Nagar, Godrej Colony, Jhopad Patti, Vikoli, Mumbai...........(Claimant No. 1). 2 - Smt. Aai Padmamani W/o Babu Ramlu Maadi, Aged About 44 Years R/o Room No. 268, Chaal No. 9, Panther Nagar, Godrej Colony, Jhopad Patti, Vikoli, Mumbai...........(Claimant No. 2). 3 - Upendra Jaiswal, S/o Shri Kriparam Jaiswal, Aged About 30 Years R/o Gurunanak Ward, Beneath Railway Over Bridge, Nipniya Road, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh..........(Owner of the vehicle). 4 - Jiwan Prasad Miri, S/o Shri Toop Singh Miri, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Suhela, Near Para Jaitkham, Baloda Bazar Road, Tehsil Simga, District Raipur Chhattisgarh...........(Driver of the vehicle). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.06.09 13:49:13 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. [ C.A.V. Judgment 1. The present appeal is directed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 by the insurance company against the award dated 07.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara (C.G.) in Claim Case No. H-30/2014, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,02,000/- in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 herein. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.21,62,369/- claimed by the unfortunate parents (respondents No. 1 & 2 herein) of deceased – Ganesh Babu Mani by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for his death in the motor accident on 26.04.2014, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,02,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. In the award in question, the Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to the negligence and rashness of the driver Jiwan Prasad Miri (respondent No. 4) of the offending vehicle i.e. tractor-trolley, in which Ganesh Babu Mani, who was riding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle, died due to head injury due to the collision. The offending vehicle tractor was insured by the appellant/insurance 3 company, whose insurance policy is Ex.D-1; no violation of the policy was found to be proved, hence the owner Upendra Jaiswal (respondent No. 3) and the driver Jiwan Prasad Miri (respondent No. 4) of the tractor as well as the appellant/insurance company were held liable for payment of compensation, which has been challenged in the appeal by the appellant/insurance company. 4. From the evidence presented by both the parties, it is clear that the registered owner of both the tractor and the trolley was Upendra Jaiswal (respondent No. 3). At the time of the accident, the tractor was insured with the appellant whose policy is Ex.D-1, but the trolley did not have any separate insurance. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the deceased Ganesh Babu Mani suffered a head injury by the trolley, which has been admitted by the motorcyclist Rahul Sonane (AW-2) as a witness to the scene. In such a situation, since the injury was caused by a collision with the trolley and the trolley was not insured, the appellant/insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. Hence, the appellant/insurance company is liable to be exonerated from its liability of payment of compensation. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 4 the matter of Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude Since Deceased Through His Lrs. & Ors., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4, the registered owner and driver of the offending vehicle, submits that the appellant/insurance company has not made any pleading that the deceased was hit by the trolley and the trolley was not insured, hence they are not liable for payment of compensation. In this regard, no evidence has been presented by the appellant/insurance company. On the basis of the evidence of Rahul Sonane (AW-2), who was the motorcyclist, it cannot be conclusively believed that Ganesh Babu Mani died due to the collision with the trolley. It is further argued that the trolley is not a self-driven vehicle; it moves only after being attached to the tractor, and they have only one driver. In such a situation, even if the tractor is attached to the trolley, then due to moving together, the tractor and trolley can be seen as a single vehicle, and the tractor was insured; hence, there was no legal requirement to insure the trolley separately. Since the accident has been found to have occurred due to the moving tractor-trolley, the insurance company is liable for compensation. The argument of the appellant insurance company is not acceptable. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal with utmost circumspection. 8. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that in the written statement, there is no pleading by the appellant/insurance company that Ganesh Babu Mani died as a result of the collision with the trolley and that the trolley was not insured, hence they are not liable for payment of compensation. The statement of the motorcyclist Rahul Sonane (AW-2), who is a witness from the claimant side, and the driver of the offending vehicle, tractor-trolley, Jiwan Prasad Miri, also states that Ganesh Babu Mani was hit by the trolley, which has also been accepted by the tribunal. In such a situation, it can be assumed that Ganesh Babu Mani died due to the injury sustained in the collision with the trolley. In the judgment cited by the appellant, in the matter of Dhondubai (Supra), the deceased was riding in the trailer along with the tractor and the trailer was not insured, then the Hon'ble Supreme Court, exercising the powers of Article 142 of the Constitution, got the compensation amount from the insurance company and ordered pay and recovery. But in the case before me, the deceased Ganesh Babu Mani is the third party to the offending vehicle i.e. tractor-trolley, that is, he was not riding in the tractor-trolley but was riding on 6 a motorcycle and the accident occurred due to collision with the offending vehicle, whereas in the case of the above judgment, the deceased was not a third party to that vehicle as he was riding in the trailer. In such a situation, the case of the appellant/insurance company is not supported by the above judgment. 9. The High Court of Allahabad while discussing this issue in the case of Liyakat Ali vs. Smt. Chunni Devi, order No. 600 of 2009 decided on 16.07.2010, has held that the trailer/trolley, which is attached with the tractor is a part of the tractor, which was duly insured from the insurance company. Hence, the insurance company cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation by taking the plea that trailer was not separately insured. 10.Likewise, the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Saudan Singh vs. Nanhi Devi & Ors, decided on 02.02.2021 in FAO No. 2952 of 2017, has held that there was no need for a separate insurance of the trolley in question. In the present case also, since the offending tractor was insured at the time of accident, the trolley attached to it was not required to be insured. 11.In the case before me also, the tractor and trolley were attached together and were in a moving position. The trolley cannot be moved without the tractor. In such a 7 situation, the tractor and trolley should be seen as a single vehicle. In this situation, this court finds that there is no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the tribunal holding the appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation, hence, the argument of the appellant/insurance company is not acceptable and there is no need to interfere in the award in question. 12.Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/insurance company is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu