1 2025:CGHC:50337 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 519 of 2021 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Through Manager Legal 2nd Floor, Shop No. 25, M.M. Silver Plaza , In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Near Mining Office , Ring Road No. 01, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Mahettar Das Mahant S/o Manglu Das Mahant Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Jamgaon, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Sumitra Bai Mahant W/o Mahettar Das Mahant Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Jamgaon, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rajkamal Mahant S/o Mahettar Das Mahant Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Jamgaon, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kumari Khileshwari D/o Mahettar Das Mahant Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Jamgaon, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 5 - Bhuvanpati Mahant S/o Mahettar Das Mahant Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Jamgaon, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 6 - Radheshyam Chandrakar (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 14- 07-2025 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate along with Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 09/10/2025 1. The appellant/Insurance company has challenged the award passed by the learned Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Mahasamund in Claim Case No.186/2016 dated 01.07.2021, whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,22,600/- with interest @ 6 % per annum on account of death of Harishankar. 2. Brief facts in a nutshell are that on 07.10.2015, deceased Harishankar was going to village Jamgaon along with Radheshyam Chandrakar on motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-04-HX-2008 and it was being driven by respondent No.6 Radheshyam Chandrakar. Respondent No.6 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, therefore, deceased Harishankar fell down from the motorcycle, resultantly, he sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. 3. The matter was reported to the police and Crime No.459/2015 was registererd for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 & 304 A of the IPC against respondent No.6. 4. The claimants who are father, mother and sister of the deceased filed claim case under Motor Vehicle Act and pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 24 years and he was earning 3 Rs.5,000/- & he was working as salesman in TVS show room. The claimants claimed Rs.23,80,000/-. The insurance company filed reply. Specific plea was taken that the deceased was owner of the motorcycle, and he himself died in the accident, thus, he cannot be termed as 3 rd party. It is also pleaded that as the deceased was owner of the offending vehicle and insurance policy covered personal accident risk of driver & owner of vehicle up to Rs.1 lakh as premium of Rs. 50 /- was paid. He would contend that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law in holding that as there was package policy and the deceased was a pillion rider, therefore, the deceased would be treated as 3 rd party; thus, he would pray to set aside the impugned award. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellant and submit that the deceased was a registered owner of the said vehicle, but he was a pillion rider and his motorcycle was insured with a package insurance policy, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly awarded compensation. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dimissed. 6. Heard. 7. Admittedly, the deceased was a registered owner of the motorcycle in question. A package insurance policy was issued by the insurance company and premium of Rs.50/- was paid to cover risk of driver & owner of the vehicle. The liability according to the insurance policy was up to extent of Rs.1 lakh. 4 8. In the present case though the deceased was registered owner of the vehicle in question, but at the time of accident, vehicle was being driven by respondent No.6. Due to negligence on part of respondent No.6, the deceased fell down from running bike and sustained injuries and resultantly, he died during the course of treatment; thus, it cannot be said that due to own negligence, the registered owner of the offending vehicle sustained injuries and succumb to it. As deceased was pillion rider therefore, learned Tribunal rightly treated him third party. 9. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim