1 2025:CGHC:43793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 926 of 2022 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office-Champa, District-Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Manharan Kashyap S/o Late Mohitram Aged About 64 Years R/o. Village-Amora, P.S. And Tahsil-Navagarh, District-Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishnabai W/o Mahesh Ram Aged About 36 Years D/o Manharan Kashyap, R/o Village-Kutra, Tahsil-Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Krishnakumar S/o Manharan Kashyap Aged About 34 Years R/o-Village-Amora, P.S. And Tahsil-Navagarh, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Manharan Kashyap Aged About 32 Years R/o Village-Amora, P.S. And Tahsil-Navagarh, District-Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Rajkumar S/o Manharan Kashyap Aged About 37 Years R/o Village-Amora, P.S. And Tahsil-Navagarh, District-Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents 2 For Appellant :Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondents 1 - 4 :Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 28.08.2025 1. The appellant (Insurance Company) has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1988”) challenging the impugned award dated 29/09/2022 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 45/2020 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,92,745/- in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants and liability of payment has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company) and respondent No. 5 (owner and driver of the offending vehicle). 2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that on 07/05/2020 at about 10:50 AM, deceased Sushilabai was sitting as a pillion rider in the Motorcycle of respondent No. 5 herein and due to his rash and negligent driving, the accident occurred due to which Sushilabai suffered grievous injuries and died while undergoing treatment. 3 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5, the accident occurred in which Sushilabai, who was sitting in the motorcycle as pillion rider, suffered grievous injuries and died. The breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy was not found proved and thereafter, the Claims Tribunal proceeded to award compensation of Rs. 8,92,745/- in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants along with interest of 9% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since deceased was sitting as pillion rider in the offending motorcycle and she was the mother of the owner of the offending motorcycle, she would not come under the category of third party and thus, would not be covered with third party risk for which the insurance policy in question was issued. He would further submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the higher side as married daughter would not be dependent of the deceased, therefore, the trial Court has erred in granting compensation under loss of consortium. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants would support the impugned award and submit that the 4 Claims Tribunal has granted just and fair compensation, therefore, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, the insurance policy in question (Ex. P/14) is a package policy which covers the risk of pillion rider and deceased Sushilabai was though related with the owner/driver of the motorcycle, but the fact remains that she was sitting on the said motorcycle as pillion rider at the time of the accident. 8. In the matter of Yashpal Luthra and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.1, it has been held by the Delhi High Court that the comprehensive/package policy of a two wheeler covers a pillion rider and there is no need for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the Insurance Company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler. 9. In the present case, since deceased Sushilabai was sitting on the Motorcycle as pillion rider which was duly covered with package policy which covers the risk of pillion rider and third party risk, her relationship with the owner/driver of the Motorcycle would not be of any relevance. 1 2011 ACJ 1415 5 Consequently, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that deceased Sushilabai would come under the category of third party and would be covered with the insurance policy even though she was the mother of the owner/driver of the said Motorcycle. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, in my considered opinion, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and even though one of the claimants is a married daughter of the deceased but that would not disentitle her from getting the compensation. As such, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award. 10. Accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet