1 2025:CGHC:38289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1189 of 2020 1 - Sukhram S/o Dibodh, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Podi, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh..(Owner) --- Appellant versus 1 - Manju Wd/o Jagnarayan, Aged About 20 Years 2 - Shivam S/o Jagnaraya, Aged About 1 Years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Jagnarayan, 3 - Arvind Kumar S/o Sukhram, Aged About 17 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Parwati, 4 - Ku. Devkumari D/o Sukhram, Aged About 20 Years 5 - Parwati W/o Sukhram, Aged About 40 Years No.1 to 5 all are R/o Village Podi, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgar.............Claimant 6 - Sant Kumar @ Santlal S/o Heeralal, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sahu Gali, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh..(Driver) 7 - Branch Manager, Magma Insurance Company, Magma House 24 Park Street Road, Calcutta 700016, Kirti Complex, Rajendra Nagar, Chowk, Ring Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.................(Insurer) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondents No.6 : Mr. R.V. Ram Rajwade, Advocate For Respondents No.7 : Mr. Priyanka Rai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 04/08/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.20 18:20:01 +0530 2 challenging the impugned award dated 02.01.2020, passed in Claim Case No.16 of 2016, whereby the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 by claimants/respondent No.1 to 5, in part, awarding total compensation of Rs.6,74,800/- fastening the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation on non-applicant No.1 & 2/owner and driver of offending vehicle. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application seeking compensation was filed by the claimants against the death of deceased Jagnarayan, who died in the road accident pleading that on 23.12.2015, at around 8:30 AM, the deceased was traveling to the Manendragarh market in Pick-up vehicle No. CG-15-AC-1592 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle"). When the vehicle reached on National Highway No. 43 near Main Road, Railway Station Churcha, Non-Applicant No. 2, while driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, overturned the vehicle. As a result, Jagnarayan sustained fatal injuries and subsequently died during course of treatment. 3. Non-applicant No.1 filed reply to the claim application denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that claim application was filed highly exaggerating the amount of compensation. Non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and the offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3. 4. Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that offending vehicle was insured by the non- 3 applicant No.3 under the commercial vehicle package policy, wherein OD premium for vehicle damage, TP premium for physical and property damage of the third party and additional premium for salaried driver, cleaner was received, but no additional premium was received for the passengers or workers. It was pleaded that deceased was the son of owner of the offending vehicle who was travelling as custodian and he does not fall in the category of third party. It was further pleaded that there was breach of conditions of insurance policy as the offending vehicle was being plied without any fitness and permit. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, partly allowed the claim application, awarded a total compensation of ₹6,74,800/-. Claims Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability on the ground of breach of policy conditions, and accordingly fastened the liability upon Non-Applicant No.1 & 2, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to satisfy the amount of compensation overlooking the fact that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.3 has insured the offending vehicle and issued policy Ex.D-1. He also contended that risk of the deceased travelling on the offending vehicle was covered under the policy as Rs.100/- was paid towards premium. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 would submit that from the pleadings made in the claim application, it is apparent that deceased was travelling along with one another in the offending vehicle, which is 4 a goods carriage vehicle. He was not travelling as an employee of the owner of the vehicle, therefore, the risk was not covered under the policy. She contended that premium of Rs.100/- is charged to cover the risk of the employee under the Workmen Compensation Act. She submits that on the date of accident, deceased was travelling as passenger in the offending vehicle therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in recording a finding that there was breach of policy condition and exonerated the insurance company, which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 would support the submission made by learned counsel for appellant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record of claim case. 10. Perusal of the pleading made in the claim application would show that claimants in their claim application have pleaded that on the date of accident, deceased Jagnarayan was travelling on pick-up vehicle and going to Manendragarh market, on the way, the vehicle overturned, in which, deceased suffered grievous injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries suffered by him. 11. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 also submitted reply to the claim application have admitted the accident of offending vehicle, however, have taken a plea that accident was not a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by non-applicant No.1/driver but had occurred in an attempt to save the persons, who suddenly came on road. There is no pleading in the claim application that deceased was travelling in the 5 capacity of an employee of the owner of offending vehicle. Non- applicant No.3/Insurance Company had taken specific plea that on the date of accident, deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger, premium of Rs.100/=- is charged for paid driver, cleaner. Risk of passenger or labourer is not covered under the policy. 12. Claimants have examined Manju, claimant No.1 as A.W.-1. In her evidence, she supported the pleadings made in the claim application. Rajeshwar Sahu is examined as A.W.-2, in his examination-in-chief he stated that he along with deceased and Devrisharan was travelling on the offending vehicle owned by his neighbour Sukhram and going to market for selling vegetables. He also admitted that at the time of accident, four persons were travelling on the offending vehicle. Appellant/owner or driver of the offending vehicle did not entered into the witness box. 13. In the aforementioned facts and evidence available on record, it is apparent that deceased was travelling along with three other persons, on the offending vehicle. The insurance policy, which is filed as Ex.D- 1, covers the risk of paid driver, cleaner and employees under IMT, for purpose of Workmen Compensation Act. No person other than those as mentioned in the policy and for whom the premium has been paid as per the seating capacity, is permitted to travel in the goods vehicle. Furthermore, such employees are allowed to travel only in the cabin of the goods vehicle. As the risk of the deceased was not covered under the policy, the Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated by the learned Claims Tribunal from its liability to satisfy the amount of compensation recording a finding that there was breach of policy 6 conditions. The said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the opinion of this Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 14. For the foregoing, the appeal being sans merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram