1 2025:CGHC:55771 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 471 of 2021  Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Through - Branch Manager, Branch Office - Kirti Complex, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Link Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Jani Bai Thakur W/o Late Dilip Thakur, Aged About 36 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Ruwanbandha, Civic Center, Bhiali, Sector - 6, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Maheshwari, D/o Late Dilip Thakur, Aged About 20 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Ruwanbandha, Civic Center, Bhiali, Sector - 6, District Durg Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 3. Sonu, S/o Late Dilip Thakur, Aged About 17 Years Minor Representated Through Mother Respondent No.1 Mother, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Ruwanbandha, Civic Center, Bhiali, Sector - 6, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4. Latmar Thakur S/o Udla Thakur, Aged About 62 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Ruwanbandha, Civic Center, Bhiali, Sector - 6, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5. Santoshi Bai Thakur D/o Late Dilip Thakur, Aged About 23 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Ruwanbandha, Civic Center, Bhiali, Sector - 6, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 6. Tameshwar Sinha, S/o Toran Lal Sinha, Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 18 Nawagaon, Police Station Bori, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 7. Toran Sinha S/o Samliya Ram Sinha, Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 18 Nawagaon, Police Station Bori, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Insurance : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate holding the brief company of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5/ : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Claimants For Respondents No. 6 & 7 : Mrs. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate holding the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.11.18 14:06:15 +0530 2 Driver & Owner brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.11 .2025 1. The Insurance company/appellant has filed this appeal challenging the liability part against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 408/2018 dated 26.06.2021, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 14,31,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of death of Dilip Thakur. 2. The brief facts are that Dilip Thakur was travelling on the mudguard of the Tractor on 02.05.2018. The driver of the offending Tractor bearing registration No. CG 07 BJ 9661 drove it rashly and negligently, resultantly, Dilip Thakur fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. The claimants, who are wife, children and father of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act inter alia on the ground that on the date of accident age of the deceased was 39 years and earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. They pleaded that the deceased was labourer working with the Tractor, they claimed a sum of Rs. 34,08,000/-. 3. The driver and owner filed their reply and pleaded that the driver had valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and vehicle was insured with the Insurance company. The Insurance company took a plea that the deceased was travelling on the mudguard of the Tractor, and thus, he was gratuitous passenger as there was no seating capacity in the Tractor and premium was paid to cover life of driver/owner only. The learned Tribunal framed issues; parties led evidence, thereafter, award was passed. 4. Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate appearing for the Insurance 3 company/appellant would argue that as there was no seating capacity and no premium was paid to cover life of employee, the learned Tribunal committed error of law while fastening liability with the Insurance company. She would fairly submit that premium of Rs. 50/- was paid to cover risk of employee of the Tractor, whereas, compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,31,500/- has been passed. She would pray to set-aside the award. 5. On the other hand, Mrs. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate appearing for driver and owner of the vehicle would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Kaur. She would submit that the deceased was an employee engaged by the owner of the Tractor and adequate premium was paid to cover his life. She would also submit that premium of Rs. 100/- was paid to cover the life of driver/owner and Rs. 50/- to cover life of employee. She would contend that the learned Tribunal has considered this aspect at length, and thereafter, fastened liability with the Insurance company. She would submit that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate appearing for the claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The Insurance policy Ex. D/5 would show that the Tractor was insured with a package policy and premium of Rs. 100/- was paid to cover life of driver/owner of the vehicle and additional premium of Rs. 50/- was paid to cover life of an employee. Admittedly, the deceased was an employee, who was travelling on the mudguard of the Tractor. It is not in dispute that there was no seating capacity in the Tractor except for driver. The driver of the Tractor drove it rashly and negligently, resultantly, the deceased fell down and succumbed to death. The learned Tribunal has fastened liability with 4 the Insurance company on the ground that premium of Rs. 50/- was taken to cover life of cleaner/helper/employee of Tractor. The learned Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the deceased was a labourer, who was engaged to load and unload Bricks. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in this regard appears to be erroneous. 9. Further, premium of Rs. 50/- only was paid to cover the risk of cleaner/helper/employee, and therefore, the liability of the Insurance company would be up to 1,00,000/- to cover the life of an employee. The learned Tribunal has fastened liability with the Insurance company and such finding appears to be contrary to the well settled principles of law. 10. The issue involved in the present case has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shivaraj vs. Rajendra and another, (2018) 10 SCC 432. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 and 11 held as under :- “10. The High Court, however, found in favour of respondent No.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 unambiguously pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor was 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 No.2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor. That 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 claimant (appellant) 5 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. Vs. Swarna Singh & Ors., Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rani & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. and including Manuara Khatun and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh And Others. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to respondent No.2 Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner (respondent No.1). ” 11. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appeal of the Insurance company is partly allowed. The Insurance company shall make payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest to the claimants against premium of Rs. 50/- and the rest part of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal shall be satisfied by the driver and owner of the vehicle. The Insurance company shall satisfy the award first, and thereafter, recover the same from respondents No. 6 and 7/driver and owner. 12. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant