1 2025:CGHC:5691 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1674 of 2016 • The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office D, Commercial Complex T.P.Nagar District Korba, Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant Versus 1. Jevier Kerketta, S/o Stanis Lal, aged about 55 years, 2. Smt. Sarmishiya W/o Jevier, aged about 53 years, Both R/o Khavaskani Farsabahar, Thana Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,.................(Claimants), 3. Samardas Alias Ajji Alias Ajeet, S/o Jugru Das Mahant, aged about 49 years, R/o Budhwari Bazar, Korba, Thana and District Korba, Chhattisgarh, …. (Driver) 4. Messers L.C.Katre Mishan Road Ratakhar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, ……..(Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant /Insurance Company : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal along with Mr. Shashank Agrawal, Advocates For Respondents : None though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 30/01/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 27.07.2016 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Kabirdham (C.G.) (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.70/2015, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,72,000/- in favour of the claimants PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.01.31 16:34:20 +0530 2 and against the non-applicants No.1, 2 & 3 jointly and severally, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 31.03.2015 at about 09:30 PM, non-applicant No.1 (herein respondent No.3)/ driver of Pick Up vehicle bearing registration No.CG 12 S 3962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and turned the offending vehicle turtle, resulting into the death of Sanjay Kerketta who was sitting in the said vehicle as a Helper, further, non-applicant No.2 (respondent No.4) is the owner of the offending vehicle. 3. A claim petition has been filed by the claimants (respondent Nos.1 & 2) under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.16,80,000/- on various heads, stating, inter alia, that he was working as Helper and earning Rs.7,100/- per month. The Tribunal, considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed impugned award as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. 4. The claim application was resisted by non-applicants including that the insurance company taking the plea that there is breach of policy conditions. Parties led evidence before the Tribunal. 5. Being aggrieved, the insurer - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited has preferred this appeal. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently submits that though the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company but it was plied in contravention of the terms and condition of the insurance policy and provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. He further contended that on the date of incident, the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger along with other passengers which fact was ignored by the Tribunal and held the insurance company liable for payment of compensation which is the erroneous finding recorded by the Tribunal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 3 7. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and thus, the offending vehicle was plied in contravention of the insurance policy. In this regard, the Claims Tribunal has recorded the finding in affirmative wherein it has been held that on the date of accident i.e. on 31.03.2015 at about 09:30 PM, in the village Pandripani, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident occurred as a result of which, the deceased Sanjay Kerketta, Helper fell down to the ground and crushed down and died. Thus, the driver was liable for cause of accident which is a correct finding of fact based on the evidence available on record. 8. A bare perusal of RC book (Ex.NA1C) would show that sitting capacity of offending vehicle is one whereas standing capacity is also mentioned to be one person. Further perusal of statement of NAW(3)-1 Vijay Kumar examined on behalf of insurance company would show that the offending vehicle was insured covering all risks. His statement would further show that insurance company has received premium for 1 + 1 person and further specifically stated that the sitting capacity was mentioned in the RC book. A bare perusal of insurance policy (Ex.NA-5) would also show seating capacity to be 1 + 1 which includes driver. It appears that the deceased was travelling on the date of accident in the offending vehicle in the capacity of the Helper and not as gratuitous passenger. 9. The learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, has recorded the finding that the deceased Sanjay Kerketta was travelling in the offending vehicle in the capacity of the Helper who died in the accident caused by the driver, and that insurance company has failed to discharge its burden that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions. The said finding being based on evidence and 4 material available on record is a correct finding of fact which does not call for any interference. 10.In the result, the appeal filed by the insurance company being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash