1 2025:CGHC:56792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1947 of 2023 Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Near L.I.C. Office, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ...........Insurer (Respondent No. 3) ... Appellant versus 1 - Sanjay Kumar Sharma, S/o. Late Shri Madanlal Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, R/o. Anupam Nagar, Ward No. 19, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil & District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ............Applicant No. 1 (Claimant) 2 - Sangeeta Sharma, W/o. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o. Anupam Nagar, Ward No. 19, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil & District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh..........Applicant No.2 (Claimant) 3 - Khushal Sharma, S/o. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o. Anupam Nagar, Ward No. 19, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil & District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Represented Through Guardian Sanjay Kumar Sharma, S/o. Late Sh. Madanlal Sharma, Aged About 54 Years.......................Applicant No. 3 (Claimant) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.11.22 16:51:50 +0530 2 4 - Mahesh Bhattad, S/o. Satish Bhattad, Aged About 20 Years, R/o. Behind Mansukhalal Petrol Pamp, House No. 505, Kailash Nagar, Tehsil & District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh….......Non- Applicant No. 1 (Driver) 5 - Vikas Kukreja, S/o. Shri Jairam Das Kukreja, R/o. Dak Bangala Ward, Dhamtari, Tehsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh........(Non- Applicant No. 2) 6 - Grish Kumar Sonchhatra, S/o. T.K. Sonchatra, R/o. C/o Satish Bhattad, Princess Palace, Timber Market, Tehsil & District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh................Non-Applicant No. 4 (Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Shobhit Kosta, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. P.K.Shrivastava, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 21.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company challenging the impugned award dated 06.07.2023 passed by learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No.149/2021, by which the claim 3 application of the claimants has been allowed and liability has been fastened upon the appellant/insurance company to pay the amount of compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would submit that the policy was “Act Only Policy” in which the deceased was not covered, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation and, as such, the appeal is allowed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that no specific plea has not been taken in the written statement by the appellant/insurance company regarding the “Act Only Policy”, therefore, the appeal is the insurance company deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 5. A careful perusal of the written statement filed by the insurance company would show that no specific plea has been taken regarding “Act Only Policy” and no evidence has been led by the insurance company. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of Manjusha & Others v. 4 United India Assurance Company Limited & Another1 in para 11, 12 & 13 has held as under : “11. When the contention of limited liability was neither taken before the Tribunal nor even in the memorandum of appeal filed, there was no reason for the High Court to look into the policy document to find limited liability; which again is urged before us on the basis of an extract of the Indian Motor Tariffs, termed to be a guideline issued, with respect to insurance policies, by the Tariff Advisory Committee. By the guidelines it is intended that a comprehensive regulatory framework governing the structure, terms, conditions and premium rates applicable to Motor Vehicle policies in India is created. It is stated that the IMT is binding on all general insurance companies, operating in the Country and ensures uniformity and fairness in underwriting motor insurance risk. No doubt, the guidelines issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee regulates the issuance of the policies by the insurers but unless it is specified in the insurance policy, it cannot bind the insured. 12. Specific reference was also made to IMT 16 which has the nominal heading ‘personal accident to unnamed passengers other than insured and paid driver and the cleaner’, which is stated to be limited to the amounts specified therein. Under IMT 16, there is a tabular form which enables 100% compensation with respect to various injuries inter alia of death. It is in the proviso that there is a limit provided with specification that the Capital Sum Insured (CSI) per person is to be inserted. Whether such sum was inserted in the policy and whether such a contention was taken before the Tribunal is most relevant in the adjudication of the instant case. 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1512 5 13. In this context, we cannot but notice Ramkhiladi (2020) 2 SCC 550, in which there was a contention taken by the claimant that the deceased was employed by the owner of the vehicle, the motor bike. It was held in paragraph 9.3 that no evidence was led by the claimants to prove that the deceased driver was an employee of the owner. Pleadings and proof of such pleadings; by valid evidence led, is the crux and core of any adjudicatory process. Trite is the principle that there can be no proof offered without specific pleadings. The limited liability was not pleaded, by the insurance company, either before the Tribunal, as we see from the award made, nor in the appeal filed before the High Court as we see from the memorandum of appeal filed before the High Court.” 6. In that view of the matter, since no plea has been taken nor the evidence has been led on behalf of the appellant/ insurance company with regard to the policy document, the appeal is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 7. The cross-objection filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 is not pressed by Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the respondent No.4; therefore, the same is also dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok