-1- 2025:CGHC:42221 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1157 of 2020 Branch Manager Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. First Floor Hinduja Complex 22, New Paras Nagar Chowk, Near Railway Line, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through- Assistant Manager (Legal) Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company, 2nd Floor Simaran Tower, In Front Of LIC Building, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Meena Dhruv W/o Late Karan Dhru Aged About 26 Years 2 - Yuvraj Dhruv S/o Late Mr. Karan Dhruv Aged About 5 Years 3 - Amit Dhruv S/o Late Mr. Karan Dhruv Aged About 1.5 Years Resp. No. 2 & 3 minor Through Their Natural Guardian Smt. Meena Dhruv W/o Late Karan Dhruv All R/o Kushalpur, Near Harijan Hostel, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Ajay Yadav S/o Lekhu Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Datrenga , Tehsil And District Raipur Chhatitsgarh, (Driver) 5 - Rupendra Pushkar S/o Paras Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Bhathagaon Chowk , Police Station Purani Basti, Ring Road No. 01 Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 6 - Smt. Shanti Dhurv W/o Late Ramsingh Dheuv Aged About 48 Years (Mother) 7 - Mukesh Dhruv S/o Late Ramsingh Dheuv Aged About 24 Years(Brother) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.09.23 10:53:16 +0530 -2- 8 - Ku. Seema Dheuv D/o Late Ramsingh Dheuv Aged About 19 Years Resp. No. 6 to 7, R/o Gogaon, Police Station Gudiyari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Sister) ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate For Resp. No. 4 & 5 : Ms. Sangeeta Kaushik, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For Resp. No. 6 to 8 : None appears though served _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 20 /08/2025 Heard. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by appellant- Insurance Company challenging awarded dated 25.09.2019 passed by learned Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) in Claim Case No.53 of 2013. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 26.01.2013 at about 10:00 a.m., when Karan Dhruv was travelling on Minidor DI Tata No.CG 04- JC 7020 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”), non-applicant No.1/driver drove offending vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed it with divider of road, due to which, offending vehicle overturned and Karan Dhruv who was travelling in the offending vehicle suffered grievous -3- injuries and died. On the date of accident, deceased Karan Dhruv was aged about 29 years healthy man and earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working as loader/labourer. Due to untimely death of deceased Karan Dhruv, applicants/claimants prayed for total compensation of Rs.21,84,000/- from non-applicants under different heads. 3. Non -applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle was proceeded ex- parte in the claim proceedings, no written statement has been filed by him. 4. Non-applicant No.2, owner of the offending vehicle in his written statement denied the pleadings made in claim application and pleaded inter alia that his vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3/insurance company for period from 29.09.2012 till 28.09.2013, therefore, non-applicant No.3/insurance company would be liable to pay amount of compensation, if any. 5. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its reply also resisted the claim and pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having any valid driving licence to drive offending vehicle and offending vehicle was being plied without any valid permit and fitness, in breach of condition of insurance policy. 6. Non-applicants No. 4, 5 & 6 have also filed their written statement supporting all the pleadings made in claim application and pleaded that they are also entitled to receive amount of compensation. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence -4- brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending motorcycle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Karan Dhruv suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, non-applicants were held liable to pay the amount of compensation, calculated and awarded total compensation of Rs.13,35,200/-. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon Insurance Company without evaluating the pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties. He contended that in claim application there is no specific pleading with regard to capacity under which deceased was travelling in offending vehicle. In FIR lodged by Devendra Vishvakarma, a labourer working as loader in offending vehicle stated that deceased was also travelling as Loader (dqyh) in offending vehicle and died in motor accident. He submits that claimants have examined Santosh Kumar Dhruv as AW2 who is stated to be eyewitness to the accident and in evidence he clearly stated that deceased was standing on side of road. Upon seeing the vehicle, he stopped it and asked driver of vehicle to take him along with cement purchased by him to his village and he will pay requisite fare for it. He also stated that deceased was travelling on platform of vehicle behind the cabin. Even in his cross-examination he had made statement that deceased was travelling in offending vehicle where no seating space is provided, from which it is apparent that deceased was travelling on platform of offending vehicle. He contended -5- that though driver of the offending vehicle did not file written statement, however, he appeared before the Claims Tribunal as NAW2 and in his evidence he stated that deceased was travelling in cabin by side of driver, however, without any pleading made, evidence of NAW 2 cannot be accepted for deciding the case. Deceased was gratuitous passenger and was travelling in breach of conditions of insurance policy therefore insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify impugned award. 9. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants would submit that there is categoric statement made by driver of offending vehicle that deceased was travelling in cabin of offending vehicle beside the driver and therefore insurance company who issued insurance policy would be liable to satisfy the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 would submit that learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence and insurance policy placed on record as Ex.D-1 rightly came to conclusion that deceased was travelling on the offending vehicle as labourer (loader), sitting in the cabin of vehicle and therefore there was no breach of condition of insurance policy . She also submits that under insurance policy risk of one cleaner and one driver is covered. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused records of claim case. 12. So far as submission of learned counsel for appellant- Insurance Company that deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger is -6- concerned, in claim application there is no specific pleading as to in what capacity deceased was travelling in offending vehicle nor there is specific pleading as to on which place deceased was sitting in the vehicle at the time of accident. AW1 Meena Dhruv examined by claimants is wife of deceased and not eyewitness. AW2 Santosh Kumar Dhurv is examined as eyewitness to accident. In his evidence he categorically stated that he was working as Loader (hammal) on the offending vehicle and when they were returning after unloading cement, deceased was standing on the side of road, who stopped vehicle and asked driver of vehicle to take him along with five bags of cement purchased by him to his home and he will pay requisite fare for it. He also stated in categoric terms that deceased along with goods i.e. cement boarded on platform of vehicle. In cross- examination he further stated that deceased was travelling on the vehicle at place where there was no seating space. There was only two space in vehicle, one for carrying goods and other for driver and cleaner. In the insurance policy, seating capacity of offending vehicle is mentioned as 2 including driver. According to the evidence of AW2, the eyewitness, deceased was not travelling in the cabin of vehicle where there was seating space. Driver of offending vehicle examined himself as NAW1 (Ajay Yadav). He made attempt to say that deceased at the time of accident was sitting in between Driver and Conductor. However, he has not filed reply to claim application and he was proceeded ex-parte. 13. In the aforementioned facts of case where non-applicant No.1 has not submitted any pleading, his oral evidence before Claims Tribunal in absence of pleading to prove facts cannot be accepted. -7- 14. In the aforementioned facts of case, evidence available on record it is apparent that deceased at the time of accident was travelling on the platform of the offending vehicle where goods are to be loaded. 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223, considered the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the insured where the owner or authorized representative of owner of the goods is traveling in the goods vehicle and suffered injury and held as under :- “9……….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 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 -8- 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.” 16. In case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon its earlier decision in case of Asha Rani (supra) has held thus :- “19. In Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493] it has been noticed that sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the 1988 Act 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. Furthermore, an owner of a passenger- carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers travelling in the vehicle. The premium in view of the 1994 amendment would only cover a third party as also the owner of the goods or his authorised representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise. 20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision -9- contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people. 21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decision of this Court in Satpal Singh [(2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130] . The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493] . We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be subserved if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, if not already satisfied, and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the -10- owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in terms whereof, it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a proceeding.” 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 423 has observed that even if the owner of luggage if travelling in the vehicle he must travel only in cabin of vehicle and observed thus : “17. In the aforementioned case, accident took place on 24-12-1993. The respondents herein filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of one Kota Venkatarao who had allegedly paid a sum of Rs 20 for travelling in the lorry. The Tribunal held: “In the absence of rebuttal evidence from the deceased and some others who travelled in the said vehicle in the capacity of owner of the luggage which was carried by them at the time of accident, it cannot be said that it is a violation of the policy, since it is not fundamental breach so as to afford to the insurer to eschew the liability altogether as per the decision in B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [(1996) 4 SCC 647 : AIR 1996 SC 2054] ” 18. The High Court, however, relying upon Satpal Singh [(2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130 : 2000 ACJ 1] opined: “This issue raised in this appeal is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh [(2000) 1 SCC -11- 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130 : 2000 ACJ 1] wherein Their Lordships held that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 all insurance policies covering third-party risks are not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in the vehicles though the vehicle is of any type or class. Following the same, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 19. It is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle. 18. For the foregoing discussions and judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred above, appeal filed by insurance company stands allowed in part. Appellant-Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to satisfy the amount of compensation as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal by impugned order. 19. As this Court has exonerated the insurance company from its liability to satisfy the amount of compensation, now liability to satisfy the amount of compensation would be upon respondents No. 4 & 5/ non-applicants No. 1 & 2 , driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen