1 2025:CGHC:34700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1227 of 2019 1 - Ramavtar Verma S/o Budhram Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Patarjhori, Police Chowki - Devkar, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Tractor Maisi Forgusan No. Cg 08 C 8699), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramkumar S/o Latmar Lodhi Aged About 40 Years R/o Patarjhori, Police Chowki - Devkar, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Tractor Maisi Forgusan No. Cg 08 C 8699), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Latmar S/o Brijlal Lodhi Aged About 65 Years R/o Patarjhori, Police Chowki - Devkar, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Tractor Trolly Maisi Forgusan No. Cg 07 D 1158) (Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Award As Cg - 07 - 1158), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Versus 1 - Kumari Damni Yadav D/o Late Gautariha Yadav Aged About 9 Years Through Natural Guardian Grandfather And Protector - Jethuram Yadav, S/o Shankar Lal Yadav, R/o Village Patarjhori Perpodi, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jethuram Yadav S/o Shankar Lal Yadav Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Patarjhori Perpodi, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Laxmi Bai W/o Jethuram Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Patarjhori Perpodi, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - H.D.F.C. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, 3rd Floor, Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 For Appellants : Mr. Sameer Rigri, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 08/07/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the owners and driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor No. C.G. - 08 - C - 8699 And Tractor Trolley No. C.G. - 07 - 1158 challenging the impugned award dated 25.04.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 126/2017 whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,46,000/- as amount of compensation to the respondents in a fatal accident case and fastened liability upon Non- Applicants No. 1 to 3 to satisfy the award. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 08.03.2009, after loading bricks in the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration no. C.G. - 08 - C – 8699, the deceased namely Gautriha along with the other labourers was going towards Manpur from Village Patarjhori. The offending vehicle was driven by the Non-applicant No. 1/Appellant No. 1 herein , reached near a bridge in Village Manpur, due to rash and negligent driving of the Non-applicant No. 1, the deceased namely, Gautriha fell down from the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to hospital on the same tractor, but he succumbed to his injuries. Subsequent to the said incident, F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 47/2009 at P.S. Gandai, District - Rajnandgaon was registered against the Non- Applicant No. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the driver and owners of the Tractor and Trolley (Appellants No. 1 to 3) overlooking the fact that on the date of 3 accident, the driver of the offending Tractor was possessed with valid and effective driving license. He contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erroneously recorded a finding that there was breach of conditions of the insurance policy which is without there being any cogent and reliable piece of evidence. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of claim case. 5. The claimants in the claim application have specifically pleaded that the deceased at the time of accident was traveling on Tractor Engine and sitting by the side of driver, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Tractor by the Non-Applicant No. 1/Driver, deceased Gautriha fell down suffered severe injuries and later on, succumbed to the injuries. In reply to the claim application, the Appellants/Non-Applicants No. 1 to 3 have admitted the fact of falling of Gautriha from the Tractor Engine while driving it. However, they have pleaded that the deceased fell down from the offending Tractor Engine because of his own negligence. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vedwati & Ors. reported in (2007) 9 SCC 486 has held thus: “11. The difference in the language of "goods vehicle" as appear in the old Act and "goods carriage" in the Act is of significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression "in addition to passengers" as contained in definition of "good vehicle" in the old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used is "good carriage" is solely for 4 the carriage of goods. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar to Clause (ii) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of "public service vehicle". The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'WC Act"). There is no reference to any passenger in "goods carriage" 12. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor.” 7. The same principle was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in one of its decisions in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223 wherein in paragraph 9 it has been held that: “9. [Ed. : Para 9 corrected as per Official Corrigendum No. F. No. F.3/Ed.B.J./18/2003.] . In Satpal case [New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh, (2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130] the Court assumed that the provisions of Section 95(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are identical with Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood prior to its amendment. But a careful scrutiny of the provisions would make it clear that prior to the amendment of 1994 it was 5 not necessary for the insurer to insure against the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle. On an erroneous impression this Court came to the conclusion that the insurer would be liable to pay compensation in respect of the death or bodily injury caused to either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative when being carried in a goods vehicle the accident occurred. If the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act of 1994 is examined, particularly Section 46, by which the expression “injury to any person” in the original Act stood substituted by the expression “injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle”, the conclusion is irresistible that prior to the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1994, even if the widest interpretation is given to the expression “to any person” it will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in the vehicle. The objects and reasons of clause 46 also state that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle for the purposes of liability under the insurance policy. It is no doubt true that sometimes the legislature amends the law by way of amplification and clarification of an inherent position which is there in the statute, but a plain meaning being given to the words used in the statute, as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994, and as it stands subsequent to its amendment in 1994 and bearing in mind the objects and reasons engrafted in the amended provisions referred to earlier, it is difficult for us to construe that the expression “including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle” which was added to the pre-existing expression “injury to any person” is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre-existing 6 statute. On the other hand it clearly demonstrates that the legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147 and making it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative either dies or suffers bodily injury. The judgment of this Court in Satpal case [New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh, (2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130] therefore must be held to have not been correctly decided and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court accordingly are set aside and these appeals are allowed. It is held that the insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of the goods or his authorised representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury. " 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Brij Mohan and others reported in (2007) 7 SCC 56 has considered the issue with regard to persons traveling on tractor trolley and held thus: “10. Furthermore, respondent was not the owner of the tractor. He was also not the driver thereof. He was merely a passenger travelling on the trolley attached to the tractor. His claim petition, therefore, could not have been allowed in view of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Ors. [(2003) 2 SCC 223] wherein the earlier decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh [(2000) 1 SCC 237] was overruled. In Asha Rani (supra) it was, inter alia, held: (SCC p. 235, paras 25-27) "25. Section 147 of the 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage 7 against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of "public service vehicle". Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmens Compensation Act. It does not speak of any passenger in a "goods carriage". 26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-a`-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words "any person" must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. "a third party". Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor. 27. Furthermore, sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, whereas sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place." [See also National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others [(2005) 12 SCC 243 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 404]. 12. Interpretation of the contracts of insurance in terms of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act came up for consideration recently before a Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 wherein it was held: (SCC p. 714, paras 23-24) '23[24]. x x x x x x x 24[25]. x x x x x x x 8 It was further observed: (SCC pp. 718-19, paras 33-35) 33[36]. x x x x x x x 34[37]. Francis Bennion in his book Statutory Interpretation described 'purposive interpretation' as under: 'A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by– (a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose, or (b) applying a stained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose.' 35[38]. More often than not, literal interpretation of a statute or a provision of a statute results in absurdity. Therefore, while interpreting statutory provisions, the courts should keep in mind the objectives or purpose for which statute has been enacted. Justice Frankfurter of US Supreme Court in an article titled as 'Some Reflections on the reading of Statutes' (47 Columbia Law Review 527), observed that, ' legislation has an aim, it seeks to obviate some mischief, to supply an adequacy, to effect a change of policy, to formulate a plan of Government. That aim, that policy is not drawn, like nitrogen, out of the air; it is evidenced in the language of the statutes, as read in the light of other external manifestations of purpose.' ” 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court case of Shivaraj v. Rajendra and Anr. reported in (2018) 10 SCC 432 has held thus: “10. The High Court, however, found in favour of Respondent 2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one 9 person, namely, the driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (Respondent 2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor. That conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case.” 10.From the aforementioned facts and decisions, it is undisputed that at the time of accident, the deceased Gautriha was traveling on the Tractor Engine. There is no sitting capacity on the Tractor Engine except the driver of the Tractor. Copy of the insurance policy of the Tractor is filed as NA – 1C. Perusal of the policy would show that the premium is paid for accidental benefits. Under the head of personal accident for owner and driver, for paid driver and risk of any other person is not covered under the policy. The Non-applicant No. 4/Insurance Company has examined Praveen Sijariya as NAW -1. He proved the policy to be issued by the respondent. In his evidence, he has not specifically stated that the vehicle was insured for agricultural purpose. This witness was cross-examined by the company on behalf of the claimants, however, no suggestion was given with regard to the purpose of the insurance of the vehicle for agricultural purposes only is perverse to the contents of the policy. In the facts of the case, the evidence brought on record by the insurance company is accepted. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that on the date of accident, the vehicle was being used for carrying bricks and there is no suggestive piece of evidence that the bricks were being transported for some work relating to agricultural activities. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle is being used for other than 10 the agricultural purposes which cannot be said to be erroneous. Further, as per the pleadings made by the claimants and the Appellants/Non-applicants No. 1 to 3, it is proved that at the time of accident, deceased was traveling on the Tractor Engine and fell down from it and succumbed to his injuries and thereby, there was breach of policy conditions. 12.In view of the aforementioned evidence available on record, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and accordingly, dismissed. 13.Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey