1 2025:CGHC:36980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1688 of 2018 1 - Tata A. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Office No. 403 4th Floor, Db, City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---(Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Neelkanth S/o Sakharam Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Dumarpara Police Station Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimants), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sammelal S/o Tikaruram Satnami Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Dumarpara Police Station Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.---(Father Of Owner Deceased Ganpat), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. K. K. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : None. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 MAC No. 1695 of 2018 1 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Office No. 403 4th Floor, Db, City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Narayan Das Vaishnav S/o Kapil Das Vaishnav, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Dumarpara P.S. Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chandrika Bai W/o Narayan Das Vaishnav, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Dumarpara P.S. Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sammelal S/o Tikaruram Satnami, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Dumarpara P.S. Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh..............Father Of Owner Deceased Ganpat, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. -- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : Mr. K. K. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : None. 3 MAC No. 1697 of 2018 1 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Office No. 403 4th Floor, Db, City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Sammelal S/o Tikaruram Satnami Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Dumarpara P.S. Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sukmat W/o Sammelal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Dumarpara P.S. Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. -- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. K. K. Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/07/2025 1. All the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 30.08.2018 has been passed. MAC Nos. 1688/2018, 1695/2018 and 1697/2018 are insurer’s appeal passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 4 45/2017, 46/2017 and 42/2017 respectively. MAC No. 1688/2018 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the father of deceased Parmeshwar Sahu has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging that on 12/01/2017 at about 4:30 PM, while Ganpat was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 11 AF 2253, he suddenly dashed into Parmeshwar Sahu, causing all three individuals rider Ganpat, pillion rider Pushpendra and Parmeshwar Sahu to fall into a pit, resulting in grievous injuries and eventual death of all three. It was pleaded that the deceased Parmeshwar Sahu was employed as a driver and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, and the claimant, being dependent on him, was entitled to compensation, claiming a total of Rs. 26,28,000/- under various heads. Respondent No. 2 i.e. the father of Ganpat (registered owner of the motorcycle) has failed to contest the case and did not file a written statement. Respondent No. 1 (insurance company), in its written statement, raised preliminary objections, stating that the vehicle was insured in the name of Ganpat Diwakar for the period 27/12/2016 to 26/12/2017, but denied liability on grounds including lack of dependency of claimants, absence of a valid driving license, breach of policy terms due to three persons riding the motorcycle, intoxication at the time of accident, and violations of 5 Sections 134 and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the learned Claims Tribunal, by award dated 30/08/2018, partly allowed the claim, holding inter alia that the accident occurred while the deceased were en route from village Damarpara to village Thathari, resulting in Parmeshwar’s death due to grievous injuries, that breach of insurance policy conditions was not established and that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,16,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of the accident, three persons were riding on a motorcycle, which is in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He further submits that as per the policy and permissible limits under the Motor Vehicles Act, only two persons namely, the rider and one pillion are legally permitted to travel on a motorcycle. However, in the present case, a third person was also travelling on the said vehicle, which amounts to a breach of the insurance policy. Despite this material infraction, the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to take this aspect into consideration and has proceeded to allow the claim petition in part, erroneously awarding a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,16,000/-. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble 6 Court in MAC No. 689/2019 and MAC No. 619/2019, wherein it was held that in cases involving violation of policy conditions, particularly when a third person is travelling as an unauthorized occupant on a motorcycle, the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured or pay compensation. Hence, this appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that there is no evidence as such who is the third occupant as such it would be difficult to hold that any of the deceased is not required to be paid compensation from the insurance company as such even if there is breach is found then also the insurance company may be directed to pay the claim in the first instance and to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. None for respondent No. 2 i.e. owner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, though the insurance company has paid 50% of the awarded amount as such it is directed that the insurance company shall first pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant No.1 and then recover the same from the owner i.e. respondent No. 2 in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/insurance company is 7 partly allowed. MAC No. 1695/2018 9. Brief facts of the case, is that, the parents of deceased Pushpendra Das Vaishnav has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging that on 12/01/2017 at about 4:30 PM, while deceased Ganpat was riding a motorcycle bearing registration number C.G. 11 AP 2253, he suddenly dashed into Parmeshwar Sahu, causing all three persons Ganpat (the rider), Pushpendra (the pillion rider), and Parmeshwar to fall into a pit, resulting in grievous injuries and ultimately the death of all three. It was stated that the motorcycle was insured with the appellant insurance company and Ganpat held a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The claimants, being the dependent parents of deceased Pushpendra who was working as a driver and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, claimed a total compensation to the tune of Rs. 26,28,000/-. Respondent No. 3, the father of deceased Ganpat and registered owner of the motorcycle has failed to contest the case and did not file any written statement. The insurance company, in its written statement, raised preliminary objections stating that although the motorcycle was insured from 27/12/2016 to 26/12/2017, there was a violation of policy conditions as three persons were riding the two-seater vehicle, the rider was 8 allegedly under the influence of alcohol, and was not holding a valid and effective license. They also denied the occurrence of the accident and cited violations of Sections 134 and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, by its impugned award dated 30/08/2018, the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the petition, holding that the accident did occur while the deceased were en route to Thathari village, the breach of insurance terms was not established, and awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,16,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim till its realization. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant insurance company challenged it as being per se illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside. Hence, this petition. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon the insurance company despite a clear finding that three persons were riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident, which is in violation of the permitted seating capacity. It was contended that the deceased does not fall within the definition of a third party, as no other vehicle was involved, and therefore the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. Furthermore, it was submitted that the notice under Section 134 of the Act was not replied to, nor was any valid driving license produced or seized, which warranted drawing of adverse inference and 9 exoneration of the insurance company. It was also argued that the rider was not holding a valid and effective driving license, and the breach of policy terms due to overloading and violation of statutory provisions absolves the insurer of liability. He further submits that the documentary evidence filed contradicted the pleadings and had been ignored by the Tribunal, making the impugned award perverse and liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,16,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. 12. None for respondent No. 3 i.e. owner. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, though the insurance company has raised various grounds challenging the award, it is pertinent to note that the deceased was a pillion rider at the time of the accident. In view of this, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the situation and awarded just and proper compensation. Therefore, the award does not warrant any interference. 10 15. Accordingly, the MAC No. 1695/2018 is filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. MAC No. 1697/2018 16. Brief facts of the case, is that, the father and mother of deceased Ganpat, who was the registered owner of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 11 AF 2253 has filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, stating that on 12/01/2017 at around 4:30 PM, Ganpat, while riding the said motorcycle with Pushpendra as pillion rider, suddenly collided with Parmeshwar Sahu. As a result, all three individuals Ganpat, Pushpendra, and Parmeshwar fell into a pit and sustained grievous injuries, ultimately leading to their deaths. It was submitted that the motorcycle was duly insured with the appellant company and that Ganpat held a valid driving license on the date of the accident. The claimants, being the legal heirs and dependents of Ganpat, sought compensation, stating that he was a driver earning Rs. 3,300/- per month, and accordingly claimed a total amount of Rs. 22,44,000/- under various heads. The insurance company (respondent No. 1) has filed a written statement, raising a preliminary objection that although the motorcycle was insured during the relevant period in the name of Ganpat Diwakar, the deceased rider, there was a breach of the policy terms since three persons were riding on a two-seater 11 motorcycle and were allegedly intoxicated at the time of the accident. It was also contended that Ganpat did not possess a valid and effective driving license and the claimants were not financially dependent on him, further denying the occurrence of the accident and alleging violation of Sections 134 and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, by award dated 30/08/2018, the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition, holding that the accident did occur as pleaded, resulting in the death of Ganpat, that the alleged breach of insurance terms and conditions was not established, and accordingly, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon the insurance company despite the categorical finding that three persons were riding on the motorcycle at the time of the accident, which is in violation of the permitted seating capacity. It was contended that the deceased does not fall under the definition of a third party as no other vehicle was involved in the accident and the accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Therefore, the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. Furthermore, the 12 deceased, who was the driver of the motorcycle, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, and no such document has been filed by the owner, who is none other than the father of the deceased. This amounts to a clear breach of the insurance policy conditions. He further submits that the documentary evidence filed by the claimants contradicts their pleadings, and the oral statements relied upon by the Tribunal to impose liability are contrary to the records. In light of these facts, the impugned award is perverse and legally unsustainable, and is liable to be quashed. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents respectfully submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a beneficial legislation and provides for compensation on a no-fault basis. In such claims, proof of negligence is not required, and the defence raised by the insurance company regarding contributory negligence or the number of persons on the motorcycle is not tenable in law. The deceased, being a victim of the accident and covered under the policy, is rightly considered as a third party for the purpose of compensation. The absence of a driving licence has not been conclusively established by the insurance company, and no evidence has been led to discharge its burden in this regard. 13 Further, the minor contradictions in documentary and oral evidence do not affect the core issue of entitlement under Section 163-A. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence and passed a well-reasoned award, which deserves to be upheld. Hence, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 20. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account that adequate compensation has already been granted which has further been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has already been awarded, this Court is of the opinion that no further interference is warranted in the matter. 21. Accordingly, the MAC No. 1697/2018 is filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat