1 2025:CGHC:54196 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 721 of 2017 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Near Adarsh Bal Mandir, Main Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Raidhar Shori S/o Baishakhu Ram Shori, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Gudrapara Kawachi Katel, Thana Durgukondal District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Present Resident Village Kodagaon Thana Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Saikobai W/o Raidhar Shori, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Gudrapara Kawachi Katel, Thana Durgukondal District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Present Resident Village Kodagaon Thana Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shivendra Shori S/o Raidhar Shori, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Gudrapara Kawachi Katel, Thana Durgukondal District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Present Resident Village Kodagaon Thana Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Heeruram Kawachi S/o Rainuram Kawachi, Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Kawachikatel, Thana Durgukondal District Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - Anit Kumar Potai S/o Pyaturam Potai, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bangachar Thana Durgukondal, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : None YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.11 19:01:29 +0530 2 For Respondents No.4 & 5 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 06.11.2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Claim Case No.44/2016, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and fastened the primary liability upon the insurance company to satisfy the amount of compensation. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 22.08.2014, Shivji Shori had gone to work as a labourer for sowing paddy saplings in the field of Pyaluram Potai along with other villagers, namely Bajaro Bai, Dhasneen Bai, Ramvatin Bai, Daro Bai and others. After ploughing was completed, while they were coming out of the field and returning towards Bangachar, the driver of tractor bearing registration No.CG-05-C-6705 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’), non- applicant No. 1 drove the tractor rashly and negligently on the footpath of the field, as a result of which the tractor overturned into a ditch. Shivji Shori, who was sitting on the embankment of the field, was crushed under the tractor and died on the spot. 3. The claimants have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,97,000/- pleading therein that at the time of the accident, 3 the deceased Shivji Shori was a healthy young man aged about 20 years, earning Rs.4,500/- per month as an agricultural and daily-wage labourer, and used to contribute half of his earnings towards the maintenance of his family. 4. Non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle, while denying the allegations except the admitted facts, submitted that on the date of the incident, non- applicant No. 1 was driving the tractor carefully towards Bangachar and that due to rain in the field of Farsaram, the tractor slipped in the mud and overturned, resulting in the accident. It was further pleaded that the tractor was duly insured with non-applicant No. 3 and the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence; hence, if any liability arises, the insurance company is liable. 5. Non-applicant No. 3, who is the insurance company filed its written statement denying the claim and contending that, as per the criminal case record, the deceased was sitting on the rear portion of the tractor at the time of the accident, which amounted to unauthorized travel. It was further alleged that the claim was exaggerated and not based on actual facts, that the driver did not possess a valid and effective licence, and that mandatory information under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 150(1)(ii) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 was not furnished. 4 6. Upon appreciating the pleadings made in the claim petition as well as after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.5,21,000/- and fastened the primary liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the insurance company. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in fastening the liability upon the insurance company, despite clear findings on record demonstrating that the deceased was travelling unauthorisedly in the tractor at the time of the accident. It is pointed out that the Tribunal itself has recorded in para 13 of the award that deceased Shivji Ram was seated on the hood/head of the tractor when it overturned, which squarely establishes that he was not an authorised occupant of the vehicle. It is further submitted that the Branch Manager of the insurance company, in his deposition, has categorically stated that no premium had been received to cover the risk of any person other than the driver of the tractor, and that the insurance policy (Ex. D-1) covered only the driver. Despite such categorical findings, the Tribunal has wrongly held the appellant jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, which is contrary to law. 8. Learned counsel further submits that as per the FIR (Ex. P-2) and seizure memo (Ex. P-4), the offending vehicle involved in the 5 accident was tractor No.CG-05-C-6705 alone, and there is no material to suggest that any trailer or agricultural implement was attached so as to bring the deceased within the ambit of a “workman” or “gratuitous passenger” covered under the policy. It is contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that except the driver, no person is permitted to travel on a tractor, and any such unauthorised occupant is not entitled to coverage under a standard policy. Attention is also invited to Rule 28 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which expressly prohibits the driver of a tractor from carrying or allowing any person to be carried on the tractor other than the driver himself. In view of the aforesaid statutory bar, the absence of premium for any additional passenger, and the specific finding that the deceased was travelling on the hood of the tractor in violation of law, it is submitted that the appellant-insurance company cannot be saddled with any liability and the award fastening liability upon it is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5, who are the driver and owner of the offending tractor, submit that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the evidence and correctly fastened the liability upon the insurance company. It is urged that the accident did not occur due to any wilful or unlawful act on the part of the driver, but solely due to the tractor slipping in the mud on account of heavy rain in the field, which was beyond the control 6 of the driver. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased was not travelling on the tractor as an unauthorised passenger, rather he was a labourer engaged in the agricultural work being carried out on the field of respondent No. 5, and his presence near or around the tractor was incidental to the work. It is argued that the insurance company has failed to prove any violation of policy conditions on the part of the insured, and mere assertion that premium was not paid for any person other than the driver cannot absolve the insurer of its statutory liability under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is contended that the insurance company did not produce the complete policy document to establish exclusion of liability, nor did it examine any competent official to substantiate its plea of limited coverage. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the insurer must first satisfy the award and may thereafter recover the amount from the insured if any breach of policy is ultimately proved. Therefore, in the present case, the Tribunal has rightly directed the insurance company to pay the compensation, and the appeal filed by the insurer deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties with utmost circumspection and perused the record. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal, while dealing with the issue with regard to breach of policy conditions, has recorded its findings in 7 paragraphs 8 to 15 as well as paragraph 22 to the effect that from the evidence of Raidhar Shori (PW-1) and Bajaro Bai (PW-2), it initially appeared that the deceased, Shivji Shori, was sitting on the boundary of the field when the tractor overturned; however, in cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he had not actually witnessed the accident. The Tribunal further referred to the testimony of Sub-Inspector Sudhir Minj (NAW-1), who proved the FIR (Ex. P-2), the inquest (Ex. P-3), the seizure memos (Ex. P-4 and P-5), and the charge-sheet filed in Crime No. 29/2014, all of which revealed that the deceased was seated on the tractor at the time of the accident. The Tribunal also noticed that even in the claim petition itself (clauses 10 and 22), it was stated that the deceased was travelling in the tractor when it overturned. On the basis of the aforesaid documentary and oral evidence, the Tribunal held that the version of PW-1 and PW-2 that the deceased was sitting on the field boundary was not credible, and that the deceased was, in fact, seated on the tractor itself. 13. The Tribunal further observed that non-applicant No. 1, the driver, had not furnished any explanation to rebut the allegation of rash and negligent driving, and therefore, an adverse inference was drawn against him. It accordingly concluded under Issues No. 1 and 2 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No. 1, causing the 8 tractor to overturn and resulting in the death of Shivji Shori, who was sitting on the head/hood of the tractor. 14. While considering Issue No. 3 relating to breach of policy conditions, the Tribunal referred to the testimony of Ramkhilavan Gond, Branch Manager of non-applicant No. 3 – the insurance company, who admitted that the tractor was duly insured under (Ex. D-1) on the date of the accident and that the investigation report or complete policy conditions were not produced. He further stated that the policy covered liability if the tractor overturned and caused injury to any person on the road. The Tribunal held that as per the insurance policy (Ex. D-1), the tractor had a seating capacity of two persons including the driver, and the deceased, being a third party travelling on the tractor at the time of the accident, was within the coverage of the policy. The Tribunal rejected the insurer’s plea that no premium had been received for any occupant other than the driver, holding that no convincing material was produced to establish breach of policy conditions. It therefore reached a negative finding on Issue No. 3. 15. Relying on these conclusions, the Tribunal ultimately held that since the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the insured tractor by respondent No. 1, and the tractor was duly insured with respondent No. 3 on the date of the accident without any proven violation of the policy terms, respondents No. 1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimants, with 9 the primary liability fixed upon the insurance company to satisfy the amount of compensation. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal fastening liability upon the insurance company is patently erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law. The materials on record, including the FIR (Ex. P-2), inquest (Ex. P-3), seizure memo (Ex. P-4), post- mortem documents (Ex. P-6) as well as the admissions of the witnesses, clearly establish that the deceased was travelling on the hood/head of the tractor at the time of the accident. The Tribunal itself has recorded such a categorical finding. It is settled law that a tractor, being an agricultural vehicle, is not designed or permitted to carry passengers, and under Rule 28 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, no person other than the driver is permitted to sit or travel on a tractor. Thus, the deceased was an unauthorised occupant and his risk was not covered under a standard agricultural tractor policy. 17. The evidence of the Branch Manager (NAW-1) that no premium had been paid for covering the risk of any person except the driver remains unrebutted. The insurer produced the policy (Ex. D-1), and although the Tribunal held otherwise, no material was brought by the claimants or the insured to show that the policy extended coverage to passengers or unauthorised occupants of the tractor. 10 In the absence of any contractual or statutory coverage, the insurer cannot be fastened with liability. The Tribunal’s reliance upon the general policy wording to treat the deceased as a “third party” is misconceived, particularly when the deceased was not a road user but an unauthorised rider on the tractor itself, in violation of law and policy conditions. The law is well-settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the insurer cannot be held liable for the death or injury of an unauthorised passenger travelling on a tractor, and any such liability must rest solely upon the owner and driver. 18. In the present case, non-applicant No. 1 failed to offer any explanation regarding the manner in which the accident occurred, and the Tribunal has already found that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the driver. The owner, non-applicant No. 2, has also not demonstrated that the vehicle was used in accordance with the terms of the policy or the provisions of law. Consequently, the driver and owner are solely responsible for the negligent use of the tractor leading to the death of the deceased. 19. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The finding of the Claims Tribunal fastening joint and several liability upon the insurance company is set aside. The insurance company (appellant herein and non- applicant No. 3 before the Tribunal) is exonerated from the liability 11 to satisfy the award. The liability to pay the compensation determined by the Claims Tribunal shall rest exclusively on respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are non-applicants No.1 and 2 (driver and owner of the offending vehicle). 20. The award is modified to the above extent. The insurance company is directed to pay the amount of compensation in the first instance and to recover the same from the non-applicants No.1 and 2, i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 21. The appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company stands allowed with no order as to costs. 22. The record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh