1 2025:CGHC:53010 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 912 of 2019  Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Its Branch Manager, 1st Floor, Galaxy Height, Near Icici Bank, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Motor Cycle No. C G 12 Ak 8145 ), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Kirti Bai Markam W/o Late Shivram Markam Aged About 33 Years R/o Village - Bhansajhal, Post - Chapora, Thana - Ratanpur Tahsil - Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 1), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Prateek Markam S/o Late Shivram Markam Aged About 14 Years Minor, With Legal Heir Respondent No.1) R/o Village - Bhansajhal, Post - Chapora, Thana - Ratanpur Tahsil - Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 2), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Ku. Pratibha Markam D/o Late Shivram Markam Aged About 12 Years Minor, With Legal Heir Respondent No.1) R/o Village - Bhansajhal, Post - Chapora, Thana - Ratanpur Tahsil - Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 3), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Omprabhat Markam S/o Late Shivram Markam Aged About 10 Years Minor, With Legal Heir Respondent No.1) R/o Village - Bhansajhal, Post - Chapora, Thana - Ratanpur Tahsil - Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 4), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Sonau Ram Markam S/o Late Jhagar Singh Markam Aged About 63 Years R/o Village - Bhansajhal, Post - Chapora, Thana - Ratanpur Tahsil - Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 5), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. Masatram, S/o Ramhe Singh Agariya Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Batra Katelipara, Thana And Tahsil - Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Motor Cycle No. C G 12 Ak 8145 ), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Insurance : Ms. Shristi Attal, Advocate holding the brief company of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.31 10:57:20 +0530 2 30.10 .2025 1. The Insurance company has challenged the liability part of award passed by the learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No. 295/2016 dated 31.01.2019, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of death of Shivram Markam. 2. Facts in brief are that on 22.03.2015, Shivram Markam along with Ram Prasad Agariya and Pardesi were returning to their village from Ratanpur on motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 12 AK 8145, near Bharari an unknown vehicle hit thier motorcycle, consequently, Shivram Markam sustained injuries and died. The claimants, who are widow, minor children and mother of the deceased filed claim case under Section 163 A of Motor Vehicle Act and claimed a sum of Rs. 11,20,000/-. The appellant/Insurance company filed reply and took a plea that as it was hit and run case; therefore, the claim application was not maintainable and the risk of the pillion rider was not covered in the Insurance policy. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. 3. Ms. Shristi Attal, Advocate would argue that there was act-only-policy and risk of pillion rider was not covered as the deceased cannot be treated as third party. She would further submit that the deceased died in hit and run case; therefore, Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the compensation. She would contend that the application moved under Section 163 A of Motor Vehicle Act was not maintainable before the learned Tribunal. She would pray to set-aside the award. 4. I have heard Ms. Attal at length and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, respondent No. 6 was registered owner of the motorcycle and the deceased was a pillion rider. The insurance policy was a package 3 policy and risk of third party was covered. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Balakrishnan, (2013) 1 SCC 731 has held that “comprehensive/package policy” would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car, relevant para 26 is reproduced herein-below :- “21. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a “comprehensive/package policy” would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an “Act Policy” stands on a different footing from a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”. As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a “Comprehensive/Package Policy” covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the “Act Policy” which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”, the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same.” 7. The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in III (2010) ACC 130 has held that comprehensive/package policy of a two wheeler covers a pillion rider and comprehensive/package policy of a private car covers the occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a comprehensive/package policy, there 4 is no need for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the Insurance Company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car. The para 27 is reproduced herein-below :- “27. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the comprehensive/package policy of a two wheeler covers a pillion rider and comprehensive/package policy of a private car covers the occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a comprehensive/package policy, there is no need for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the Insurance Company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car. In fact, in view of the TAC’s directives and those of the IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case.” 8. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant