1 2025:CGHC:39613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 842 of 2022 The New India Insurance Company Limited Head Office New India Insurance Building, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Court Mumbai 400001, Near Branch Divisional Office Korba, District Korba (C.G.) Through Authorized Signatory Suit Claim Hub, The New India Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor Rama Trade Center, Above Axis Bank, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Dilbhanjan S/o Sukhsai Aged About 54 Years Caste Rawat, R/o Village Buldega, Tehsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) (Claimants) 2 - Smt. Badebai W/o Dilbhanjan Aged About 50 Years Caste Rawat, R/o Village Buldega, Tehsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Bhanjan Sai S/o Late Badalsai Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Buldega, Tehsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) (Driver) 4 - Mitrabhan Dansena S/o Late Shankarram Dansena Aged About 35 Years Caste Kalar, R/o Village Kachhar, Tehsil Pattalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) (Lr Of Shankar Ram, Owner Of Offending Vehicle) ... Respondents HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.08.08 16:56:54 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate For respondents No.1 and 2 None though served For Respondents 3 and 4 : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 07.08.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) challenging the impugned award dated 16/03/2022 passed by learned Upper Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 17/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,74,800/- as compensation in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants and the appellant (Insurance Company) has been directed to firstly pay and recover the compensation amount from respondents No. 3 and 4 i.e. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 27/04/2007 at about 7 PM, deceased Loharsai had gone from village Buldega to Farsatoli while sitting in the 3 Tractor bearing Registration No. 11 A 2028 and on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 herein, Loharsai fell from the Tractor and suffered serious injuries and ultimately, died. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Loharsai died on account of falling from the Tractor which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 3 herein and since said Tractor was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, therefore, the appellant (Insurance Company) is not liable for payment of compensation, however, directed them to firstly pay the compensation amount to the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein/claimants and thereafter, recover it from respondents No. 3 and 4 herein i.e. Driver and owner of the Tractor. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in directing the appellant (Insurance Company) to pay and recover the compensation amount from respondents No. 3 and 4 as deceased was sitting in the Tractor which is prohibited as per the terms of the Insurance policy, therefore, appellant (Insurance Company) is not liable to make any payment to the claimants. 4 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 would also oppose the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. A careful perusal of the record would show that learned Claims Tribunal, after finding that the Tractor was being plied in breach of terms of insurance policy as the said Tractor was insured only for agricultural purpose, whereas, on the date of the accident, it was carrying passengers and deceased Loharsai was also sitting in the Tractor as a passenger, held that the appellant (Insurance Company) would not be liable for payment of compensation to the claimants, and thereafter, directed the appellant (Insurance Company) to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover it from respondents No. 3 and 4 herein i.e. Driver and owner of the Tractor relying upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Manuara Khatun and Others v. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others1, however, it is the plea of the appellant (Insurance Company) that the order of pay and recover ought not to have been granted by the Claims Tribunal. 1 (2017) 4 SCC 769 5 8. At this stage, it would be profitable to notice the decision rendered by The Supreme Court in the matter of Shivaraj v. Rajendra and Another2, where in a similar set of facts and circumstances as the case in hand, their Lordships have held as under :- “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 unambigously pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor 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 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 idemnify the owner of the tractor. The conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case. 11. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant claimant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh3, Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.4, Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.5 and including Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh (supra). In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent 2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to Respondent 2 insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with 2 (2018) 10 SCC 432 3 (2004) 3 SCC 297 4 (2018) 5 SCC 656 5 (2018) 8 SCC 492 6 liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, Respondent 1. 9. In view of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matters of Manuara Khatun (supra) and Shivaraj (supra), I am of the considered opinion that learned Claims Tribunal has rightly directed the appellant (Insurance Company) to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and thereafter, recover it from respondents No. 3 and 4 herein i.e. Driver and owner of the Tractor. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that 75 % of the compensation amount has been paid to the claimants, as such, they are directed to pay the remaining 25 % of the amount within 45 days from today. 10. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet