1 2025:CGHC:21016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1713 of 2018 1 - Chain Singh Jain S/o Jaggu Ram Jain Aged About 40 Years R/o Colliery School Para, Korar, Tahsil Korar, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh.(Owner). ... Appellant versus 1 - Ramesh Jain S/o Sakha Ram Jain Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Singray, Makadi, P.S. And Tahsil Kanker, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Geeta Jain W/o Ramesh Jain Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Singray, Makadi, P.S. And Tahsil Kanker, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Radhika Jain D/o Ramesh Jain Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Singray, Makadi, P.S. And Tahsil Kanker, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Bisheshwar Surojiya S/o Kripa Ram Surojiya Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Singray, Makadi, P.S. And Tahsil Kanker, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh. (Driver). 5 - The Oriental General Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office At Near Adarsh Bal Mandir, Main Road Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhan, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : None. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.05.09 16:42:22 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Judgment on Board (07.05.2025) 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award dated 05.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 45/2017. 2. As against compensation of Rs.24,17,000/- claimed by the respondents No.1 to 3 herein by filing claim application under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth ‘the Act’) for death of Pradeep Jain in the motor accident on 11.01.2017, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.7,10,400/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No. CG-05-E-3775 by its driver – Bisheshwar Surojiya, i.e. respondent No.4; Pradeep Jain sustained grievous injuries in the motor accident and died; the insurance company exonerated from its liability to pay compensation as the offending vehicle was insured as a private vehicle whereas it was not changed from private vehicle to taxi vehicle by its owner in the insurance policy and the risk cover of the occupant/deceased is not covered under the policy; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation in favour of claimants; the owner/appellant of the offending vehicle has held liable for payment of compensation. Hence, the appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence in its proper 3 perspective and committed a grave error in fastening liability upon the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle. The learned claims tribunal failed to appreciate that no specific pleading regarding breach on the ground that on the date of accident, the vehicle was registered as cab and was used as a taxi but the policy was private package policy, hence without pleading the specific ground of breach, the insurance company cannot be exonerated. He further submits that as per policy Ex.D-7, a premium of Rs. 450/- has been paid to cover the risk of 9 persons. The vehicle was registered as a taxi cab. The insurance company has failed to prove by evidence that the deceased was riding in that vehicle as a gratuitous passenger or that the offending vehicle was being driven for hire, hence, the insurance company is liable for compensation. As such, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5/insurance company supported the award and submit that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is based on the proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence which needs not to interfere. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 7. In this case, Ramesh Jain, father of the deceased, has been examined from the claimant's side. No witness has been examined on behalf of the driver/owner before the Tribunal, whereas Senior Assistant G.R. Dhruv (NAW-3) and Assistant Grade-2 Prakash Chand Dhruv (NAW-4) of RTO, Kanker, have been examined on behalf of the insurance company. 8. Ramesh, father of the deceased, has submitted certified copies of the charge sheet as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P- 5. On the basis 4 of the registration certificate (Ex.D-3) certified by Assistant Grade-2 Prakash Chand Dhruv of RTO office Kanker and permit (Ex.D-4), the Tribunal has held that the offending vehicle was registered as Bolero Taxi Cab on the date of accident for which permit was also issued from the office. But on the basis of the statement of Senior Assistant G.R. Dhruv of the insurance company and as per the insurance policy certificate (Ex.D-7), the Tribunal held that the vehicle was insured as a private taxi and found that it mentioned in the First Information Report that the vehicle was being used on rent. The tribunal exonerated the insurance company of its liability as the risk in respect of deceased Pradeep Jain, who was the occupant of the vehicle, was not covered under the policy. 9. Importantly, it is noteworthy that in the written statement of the insurance company, no pleading has been made that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being used on rent and the deceased was in it as a gratuitous passenger. According to the claim case, the deceased Pradeep Jain was going from Kanker to Charama with his friends in the Bolero vehicle of his acquaintance i.e. the appellant. The same thing has also come up in the statement of the claimant's witness, the deceased's father, Ramesh Jain, which could not be refuted. 10.Senior Assistant G.R. Dhruv, examined by the insurance company, is not a witness to the spot. Similarly, Assistant Grade-2 Prakash Dhruv of RTO Office, Kanker is also not a witness of the spot, i.e. he is not able to give any information regarding the status of the deceased when he was in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. 11.Only in the First Information Report is it mentioned that apart from the driver and the conductor, 5 other persons 5 were travelling in the Bolero vehicle. It is not clearly mentioned whether any of them had paid fare to the driver or the owner, or had taken the vehicle on rent. The First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence. In the above situation, when there is no clear statement of the insurance company in this regard, then in the absence of evidence, it is not appropriate to assume that the offending vehicle was being used on rent. 12.Thus, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the offending vehicle was used for commercial purposes and was being driven on rent is not justified. As far as the question of liability is concerned, in this regard, it is clear from the evidence presented that the offending vehicle was registered as a taxi cab on the date of the accident and as per policy Ex.D-7, a premium of Rs. 450/- was paid for 9 persons also. In such a situation, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the insurance company is not liable for paying compensation in respect of the deceased is not found to be sustainable, and the same is liable to be set aside in this regard. 13.In the result, the appeal of the registered owner/appellant is allowed and the insurance company is found liable for compensation. The order impugned is modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 14.Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu