(MAC No.1093/2022) 2025:CGHC:53883 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1093 of 2022 {Arising out of award dated 6-7-2022 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Motor Accident Claim Case No.190/2019} Ku. Arti Minj, D/o Shri Bartholomiyush Minj, Aged about 21 years, Occupation Student, R/o Village Shivnagar, Post Tara, Police Station & Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1. Bartholomiyush Minj, S/o Late Benedikt Minj, Aged about 57 years, Occupation Service, R/o Village Shivnagar, Post Tara, Police Station & Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner & Driver of vehicle No. Hero Glamour Motorcycle bearing No.CG-15/ DB-5797) (Driver & Owner) 2. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office ICICI Lombard House-414, Vir Sawarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Mandir, Prabha Devi, Mumbai, through Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Ground Floor, Commercial Bhawan, Devendranagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : None present, though served. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Suraj Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shekhar Amin, Advocate. Amicus Curiae : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.11.06 16:11:57 +0530 (MAC No.1093/2022) Judgment on Board 04/11/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant herein/claimant seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 6-7-2022 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Motor Accident Claim Case No.190/2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal while granting compensation of ₹ 22,66,355/- for the death of deceased Dorothiya Minj, who was Head Mistress in Government School, aged about 61 years at the time of incident, has exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation. The appellant herein/claimant is the daughter of the deceased. 2. The Claims Tribunal has held that the deceased was sitting as pillion rider on the motorcycle along with her husband – respondent No.1 herein, who is owner of the vehicle, and suffered accident in which she died. Though the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the claimant/appellant herein is entitled for compensation to the extent of ₹ 22,66,355/-, but fastened liability upon the owner & driver of the vehicle i.e. respondent No.1 herein, who is husband of the deceased as also father of the claimant/appellant herein, and exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the compensation, as according to the Claims Tribunal the deceased pillion rider is not (MAC No.1093/2022) third party which is sought to be challenged in this appeal by impugning the award. 3. Mr. Shubham Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/claimant, would submit that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in passing the impugned award as the policy was comprehensive policy and he relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Yashpal Luthra and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another1 in support of his contention. 4. Mr. Suraj Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 herein, would oppose the appeal and support the impugned award. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Admittedly, the insurance policy in question (Ex.D-1) is a comprehensive (package) policy which covers the risk of pillion rider and deceased Dorothiya Minj was though related with the owner/ driver of the motorcycle i.e. respondent No.1 herein, but the fact remains that she was sitting on the said motorcycle as pillion rider at the time of accident. 7. In Yashpal Luthra (supra), it has been held by the Delhi High Court that the comprehensive/package policy of a two wheeler covers 1 2011 ACJ 1415 (MAC No.1093/2022) a pillion rider and 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. 8. In the present case, since deceased Dorothiya Minj was sitting on the motorcycle as pillion rider, which was duly covered with the comprehensive (package) policy and which covers the risk of pillion rider as well, the Claims Tribunal has legally erred in not fastening liability upon the Insurance Company, even though the deceased was wife of the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and she would fall within the category of third party. Accordingly, it is directed that the entire compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal be paid by the Insurance Company along with interest within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma