Page No.1 of 5 IN MAC-1351-2022 2025:CGHC:41546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1351 of 2022 [Arising out of award dated 15.07.2022, passed in Claim Case No.49/2018 (Smt. Ayate Kawasi and others v. Manmohan Raikwar and other] by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), South Bastar, Dantewada (CG)] The New India Assurance Company Limited (Wrongly Mention Insurance) Akashvani Road, Gandhi Nagar Ward M M Tower Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh Through Authorized Signatory Manager Office 2nd Floor Rama Trade Center Opposite Rajiv Plaza Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Ayate Kawasi Wd/o Late Shri Gumer Kawasi Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Girum Dorapara, P.S. Darbha, District Bastar(Jagdalpur) Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Rajesh Kawasi S/o Late Shri Gumer Kawasi Aged About 2 Years Res No. 2 Minor Through Next Friend Mother Smt. Ayate Kawasi (Res.No. 1) 3 - Somdu Kawasi Shri Madka Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Girum Dorapara, P.S. Darbha, District Bastar(Jagdalpur) Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Rame Kawasi W/o Shri Somdu Kawasi Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Girum Dorapara, P.S. Darbha, District Bastar(Jagdalpur) Chhattisgarh 5 - Manmohan Raikwar S/o Shri Fulchan Raikwar Aged About 58 Years R/o Nakapara Tongpal, P.S. Tongpal District Sukma Chhattisgarh 6 - Balram Jha S/o Shri Manoj Jha Aged About 22 Years R/o Nakapara Tongpal, P.S. Tongpal District Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. BN Nande, Advocate For Respondents No.1-4 : None through served. SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 5 IN MAC-1351-2022 For Respondents No.5 & 6 : Mr. Puneet Ruparel, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 18.08.2025 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant-Insurance Company is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 15.07.2022, passed in Claim Case No.49/2018 (Smt. Ayate Kawasi and others v. Manmohan Raikwar and other] by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), South Bastar, Dantewada (CG) (for short the “MACT”), whereby the claim application filed by the respondents No.01-4/claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.18,51,000/- has been awarded to them alongwith interest @ 6% PA from the date of claim till its actual realization on account of death of Gumer Kawasi in the accident occurred on 19.05.2016, which amount is directed to be firstly pay by the appellant-Insurance Company and thereafter recovery from the owner and driver. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that in the present case, on the date of accident, the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, whose risk was not covered under the insurance policy. Therefore, the learned MACT is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability to firstly pay the compensation upon the appellant- insurance company and thereafter recovery from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. As such, Page No.3 of 5 IN MAC-1351-2022 the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.05 & 06 would support the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, a careful perusal of the record would show that learned MACT, after finding that the offending vehicle (i.e. Pickup) was being plied in breach of terms of insurance policy, as the said Pickup was insured only for goods carrying purpose, whereas, on the date of the accident, it was carrying passengers and the deceased was also sitting in the Pickup as a gratuitous passenger, held that the appellant (Insurance Company) would not be liable for payment of compensation to the claimants, and therefore, directed the appellant (Insurance Company) to pay the compensation to the claimants first and recover it from respondents No. 5 and 6 herein i.e. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle (Pickup). However, it is the plea of the appellant (Insurance Company) that the order of pay and recover ought not to have been granted by the learned MACT. 6. At this stage, it would be profitable to notice the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Shivaraj v. Rajendra and Another1, wherein a similar set of facts and circumstances as the case in hand, their Lordships have held as under :- 1 (2018) 10 SCC 432 Page No.4 of 5 IN MAC-1351-2022 “10. The High Court, however, found in favour of Respondent 2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record unambigously pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person, namely, the driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (Respondent 2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to idemnify the owner of the tractor. The conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case. 11. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant claimant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh2, Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.3, Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.4 and including Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh (supra). In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent 2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to Respondent 2 insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, Respondent 1. 7. In view of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matters of Shivaraj (supra), I am of the considered opinion that learned MACT has rightly directed the appellant (Insurance Company) to pay the compensation amount to the 2 (2004) 3 SCC 297 3 (2018) 5 SCC 656 4 (2018) 8 SCC 492 Page No.5 of 5 IN MAC-1351-2022 claimants and thereafter, recover it from respondents No. 5 and 6 herein i.e. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle. As such, the findings recorded by the learned MACT, in the considered opinion of this Court, is correct findings of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award, passed by the learned MACT. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if