1 2025:CGHC:17499 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1195 of 2019 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Officer, Railway Station, Near Bhartiya Jeevan Beema Nigam, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Pushpraj Singh Rajput S/o Late Sonsing Rajput, Aged About 23 Years, Occupation Driver, R/o Village Dilapahari, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2. Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Manager, Shopping Maal, Second Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Smt. Gayatri Soni W/o Gorelal Soni, Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Bamhini Post Sukuldehan, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. For other Respondents : None. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 16/04/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.04.21 17:28:32 +0530 2 Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No.88/2014, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,35,728/- with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, in brief, are that when appellant Pushpraj (injured) along with Durgesh (pillion rider) were traveling on a pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-K-Q-6587 from Sukuldaihan to Rajnandgaon. Near Chunni Sahu Farm House in Dharmapur, at about 10:15 am, their motorcycle was hit by a Splendor motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-08-E-8142 driven rashly and negligently, as a result of which, Pushpraj and Durgesh (pillion rider) suffered grievous injuries. They were taken to the District Hospital in Rajnandgaon for treatment. The claimant/injured filed a claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Appellant, who is the insurer of his pulsar motorcycle, owner and the insurer of the said splendor motorcycle (but this splendor motorcycle was not found insured by Respondent No.2/Insurance Comp.) and the driver of the said motorcycle Sajid was died in that accident. The Tribunal after considering the evidence brought on record computed total compensation of Rs.4,71,457/- and considering 50% contributory negligence on the part of injured has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,35,728/- with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization in favour of the claimant/injured, in which, the Respondent No.3/Owner of the splendor motorcycle and the Appellant/Insurance Company have been held liable for payment of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that since the injured himself was the driver/owner of the Pulsar motorcycle (which is insured by the Appellant/Insurance Company), he was 3 not a third party to the offending motorcycle. As per the insurance policy Ex.D-2, his risk cover limit is up to Rs.1,00,000. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal being more than the limit of Rs.1,00,000/- is contrary to the policy. 4. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not require any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It appears from the perusal of the records that on the date of the accident the injured was driver/owner of the vehicle in question which was insured with the appellant/insurance company with a policy premium of Rs. 50/- for PA for owner/driver to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- which is evident from Policy Certificate Ex. D-2, issued by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in favour of Pushpraj/Respondent No.1 for his vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-KQ-6587, which was valid till 15.04.2014. 7. Now, I shall deal with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for appellant that the injured being the driver/owner of the vehicle in question (pulsar motorcycle) does not fall under the category of third party. Law on this point is already settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 wherein the Supreme Court, relying upon its own case rendered in the matter of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710, has restricted the claimant to entitle personal accident cover strictly as per terms of insurance contract covering, which is sum of Rs. 1 lakh and awarded interest as well. 8. Thus, from the above discussion, it is found that the liability of the appellant/insurance company is only to the extent of Rs 1,00,000/-. In this situation, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the entire award amount jointly & severally. 4 9. In that view of the matter, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is partly allowed. It is directed that the claimant shall be entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of 2,35,728/- from the Appellant/Insurance Company. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions including interest rate shall remain intact. 10. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.