1 2025:CGHC:13983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 200 of 2020 1 - Smt. Suruchi Bariha W/o Late Karamsingh Bariha, Aged About 42 Years 2 - Jaishree D/o Karam Singh Bariha, Aged About 14 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Suruchi Bariha W/o Late Karamsingh Bariha, 3 - Chhattar Singh S/o Jatansingh Bariha, Aged About 65 Years 4 - Smt. Rambai, W/o Chhattar Sing Aged About 62 Years All are R/o Nagedi, Rajadevri, Kasdol, Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Office Of I.C.I.C.I. Lombard, House - 414, Vir Savarkar Marg, Near Siddi Vinayak Mandir, Prabha Devi, Mumbai ( Maharashtra ) Pin - 400025 Branch Office, Ground Floor, Commercial Building, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh, (Insurer Of The Offending, Vehicle) --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 24/03/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar – Bhatapara (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.09.2019 passed in Claim Case No.08/2018 thereby allowing BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.29 14:44:14 +0530 2 application in part and awarding Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 30.04.2017 at about 11.30 AM, deceased Karam Singh Bariha was going to his village Nagedi on his motor cycle. When he reached the vicinity of Goda Bridge, the vehicle became unbalanced due to the poor condition of the road and collided with a tree, resulting into the death of Karam Singh Bariha on the spot. Claimants/appellants filed an application under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.23,75,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased Karam Singh was working as Panchayat Secretary and was earning Rs.14,000/- per month. The claimants are dependent upon the deceased. Claimants have also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to them like funeral expenses, for love and affection and for loss of estate etc. 3. Non-applicant/Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application, while denying the pleadings made therein, has further pleaded that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It was pleaded that on the date of incident, deceased was driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently, therefore, an offence under Section 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. was registered against him and on account of his death, closure has been done. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased was not having any valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. There was breach of condition of insurance policy, hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 3 4. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal passed the impugned award holding that the deceased, himself was the owner-cum driver of the vehicle and the respondent/insurance company has covered the risk of the owner-cum-driver to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- by taking a premium of Rs.50/-, therefore, the insurer is liable to pay only up to Rs. 1,00,000/- upon submission of valid driving license of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is bad in law so far as it relates to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Karam Singh, which is very much on lower side. It is argued that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the circular issued by the Central Government with regard to Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicle Act and fixed the liability to Rs.5,00,000/-. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant. He submits that the deceased, being driver -cum- owner of the vehicle, paid a premium of Rs. 50/- to the insurance company covering the risk of owner-cum- driver up to Rs.1,00,000/- only. It is also submitted that deceased will not come within the category of third party. He further submits that the liability of the respondent/insurance company will be only contractual liability under the policy and risk covered under the policy for owner/driver was only for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was 4 awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. The impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that on the fateful day, deceased Karam Singh Bariha while driving the motor cycle met with an accident and his motor cycle dashed against the tree due to which he succumbed to the injuries. Appellants being the legal representative of the deceased - Karam Singh Bariha, filed an application U/s. 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.23,75,000/- under various heads. It was pleaded and stated that on the date of incident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent insurance company. 9. Now turning to the question of the liability of the insurance company, the respective evidence and insurance policy placed on record is examined. The respondent/insurance company has also examined one Sushil Tripathi (NAW-1). As per evidence of Sushil Tripathi (NAW- 1), the offending vehicle was insured with respondent from 19.12.2016 to 18.12.2017. He stated that in this case, driver himself is the owner of the vehicle for whom premium of Rs.50/- has been taken by the insurance company for which insurance company is responsible to pay compensation only Rs.1,00,000/- and the said compensation will be paid if the driver is valid driving licence holder. Respondent-Insurance Company has placed on record the copy of insurance policy, which is marked and exhibited as Ex.N-1. 5 10. Perusal of the policy (Ex.N-1) would show that policy was issued in the name of Karam Singh Bariha and for compulsory PA Cover (Owner Driver), a premium of Rs.50/- was paid. The relevant portion of the terms and conditions are as under :- “LIMITATIONS AS TO USE:-The Policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than: a) Hire Or Reward b) Carriage of goods (other than samples or personal luggage) c) Organized Racing d) Pace Making e) Speed Testing f) Reliability Trials g) Any purpose in connection with Motor Trade DRIVER: Any person including insured: Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from Holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner's Licence may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. LIMIT OF LIABILITY: Limit of the amount of the Company's liability under the Section II-I(i) in respect of any one accident as per M.V. Act 1988. Limit of the amount of the Company's liability under Secion II-I(ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event: Upto Rs 100000/- IMPORTANT NOTICE:-The insured is not indemified if the vehicle is used or driven otherwise than in accordance with this schedule. Any payment made by the company by reason of wider terms appearing in the Certificate in order to comply with the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is recoveralbe from the insured. See the clause headed “AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN TERMS AND RIGHTS OF RECOVERY’.” 6 11. Perusal of the aforementioned terms and conditions of the policy, it is clear that the driver of the vehicle is entitled for the risk covered under the policy for the owner-cum-driver under the own damage. Risk of owner-cum-driver is covered under policy to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. 12. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that impugned award is not put to challenge by insurance company, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 13. Accordingly, the appeal has no merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram