1 2025:CGHC:50189 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1124 of 2017 1 - Chola Mandlam Ms General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office , Simran Tower, 2nd Floor, Opposite L.I. C. Building, Pandri, Police Staion Pandri, Civil And Revenue Distreict Raipur, Chhattisgarh Insurer Of Vehicle Tractor No. Up-64-S-6158 And Trolley Vide Insurance Policy No. 3380/00548215/000/01 Period 14-02-2014 To 13-02-2015 And 3380/00678574/000/00 Period 21.02.2014 To 20.02.2015 ...........Applicant. , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Krishna Gond S/o Late Ramvraksha Gond Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Vijaynagar, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Mankunwar W/o Krishna Gond Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Vijaynagar, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rukmaniya, D/o Krishna Gond Aged About 17 Years Minor Hence Representing Through Their Father Respondent No. 1 Krishna Gond , R/o Village Vijaynagar, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rajkumar S/o Krishna Gond Aged About 15 Years Minor Hence Representing Through Their Father Respondent No. 1 Krishna Gond , R/o Village Vijaynagar, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur, ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Reena D/o Krishna Gond Aged About 12 Years Minor Hence Representing Through Their Father Respondent No. 1 Krishna Gond , R/o Village Vijaynagar, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Savita D/o Krishna Gond Aged About 9 Years Minor Hence Representing Through Their Father Respondent No. 1 Krishna Gond , R/o Village Vijaynagar, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Laalan Prasad S/o Badri Yadav, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Mahavirganj, P O Chiniya Thana And Tahsil Ramanujganj District Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Rajaram Gupta (Died And Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court's Order Dated 12-04-2024 And 11-06-2024. 9 - Kariaman Singh Kahairwar, S/o Alate Manraj Singh Khairwar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Chaki Hadipara, P.O. Chaki Thana And Tahsil Ramanujganj District Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.....Driver Of Veh. Tractor No. Up - 64- S- 6158 , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Rambharosh Singh S/o Shivbharosh Kudar, Post Batauli, Tahsil- Lundra District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ........Owner Of Trolley Chassis No. T. S. I./ 293/013/014, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Neelesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondents No.7, : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate on behalf of 3 9 & 10 Respondents No.1 to 6 : Mr. V. K. Pandey, Advocate Mr. T. R. Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 08/10/2025 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 11-04-2017 passed by the Court of the 2nd Additional Judge to the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh (presided over by Shri Vinod Kumar Dewangan) in Claim Case No. 26/2015 [Annexure A-1]. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6, being the parents, sisters, and brother of the deceased Sukhmaniya, aged 19 years, filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”) seeking compensation of Rs. 31.96 lakhs under various heads. It was averred that the appellant was the insurer of the offending vehicle, namely a tractor bearing Registration No. UP-64-S-6158 and Trolley Chassis No. T.S.I./293/013/014, while respondent No. 7 was the registered owner of the tractor, respondent No. 8 was the purchaser, respondent No. 9 was the driver of the tractor, and respondent No. 10 was the owner of the trolley. The appellant was impleaded in the proceedings in accordance with Section 170 of the Act. According to the claim application, on 27.12.2014 at approximately 8:45 PM, the deceased was traveling with friends 4 on the tractor-trolley near the Brick Kiln of Rajaram Gupta, Village Chaki, Police Station Ramanujganj, when the driver (respondent No. 9) allegedly drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, causing the deceased to fall off and sustain fatal injuries. The accident was reported to the police, resulting in registration of Crime No. 06/2015 against respondent No. 9. The deceased, a 19-year-old laborer earning Rs. 6,000 per month, was the basis for the claimants seeking Rs. 31,96,000 as compensation. Notices were issued to respondents No. 7 to 10 and the appellant, who jointly filed written statements denying all allegations and asserting contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The respondents contended that the driver held a valid license and the vehicle was insured. The appellant, while denying liability, argued that the deceased’s risk was not covered as she was traveling in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, the vehicle was misused, and the driver lacked a valid license, thereby negating any liability. The learned Tribunal framed issues and ultimately held that while the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle, holding the appellant liable for compensation was erroneous in law. The appellant contended the Tribunal’s order was arbitrary, misconceived, and that the deceased did not fall within the definition of a third party under the Act. The appellant deposited Rs. 25,000 for filing the appeal within the prescribed limitation, and an exemption for filing the certified copy of the order sheet was granted. The appellant challenges the impugned award as 5 bad in law, arbitrary, and against the weight of evidence, thereby necessitating this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award passed by the Learned Tribunal is patently erroneous, contrary to the facts, circumstances, and evidence on record, and is bad in law. The findings of the Tribunal, as reflected in the impugned order, are contrary to the documents and pleadings filed by the claimants. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was traveling on the tractor, and her risk was not covered under the insurance policy, a fact ignored by the Tribunal despite clear evidence, including the insurance policy and the provisions of Rule 28 of the Road Regulations, 1989. The Tribunal’s approach is arbitrary and in direct conflict with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, particularly since no person is legally permitted to travel on a tractor-trolley in any capacity. The deceased, therefore, does not fall within the scope of a third party, as corroborated by the FIR and other criminal case papers relied upon by the claimants and consistent with Rule 220 of the C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. The Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the material facts and erred in holding the appellant liable for compensation, neglecting to consider the owner/driver’s liability alone. The Tribunal further ignored the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which excludes the deceased from the definition of a third party, and overlooked the fact that the offending vehicle was used in 6 contravention of Rule 28, without a valid driving license, and was being used for carrying both goods and passengers in violation of the Act. Additionally, the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive, particularly the 50% allowance for future prospects, which remains unsubstantiated by the claimants. Hence, the award is perverse, based on conjectures and surmises, and is liable to be set aside, with the liability for compensation rightly resting solely on the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for respondents respectfully opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, contending that the arguments put forth lack merit and do not warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal was rendered after due consideration of the evidence on record and in strict conformity with the applicable legal principles and statutory provisions. As such, does not suffer from any illegality or procedural irregularity that would justify its annulment or modification. Accordingly, it is urged that the appeal be dismissed as devoid of substance. 5. Having carefully perused the pleadings, evidence, and the impugned award, this Court finds no infirmity in the reasoning of the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has meticulously analyzed the facts and law and correctly applied the principles governing motor 7 accident claims. The argument that the deceased’s risk was not covered under the insurance policy, on account of her traveling on a tractor-trolley, is unpersuasive in the factual matrix of this case. The Tribunal rightly observed that irrespective of the nature of the vehicle, the insurer’s liability arises unless specifically excluded by the policy or law. The Tribunal has also duly considered the evidence regarding the driver’s license and vehicle use and found the appellant liable accordingly. 6. The contentions regarding exclusion of the deceased from the definition of third party under Section 147 of the Act and Rule 28 of the Road Regulations do not merit acceptance in the present circumstances where the deceased was a passenger and victim of rash and negligent driving. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver, and the law mandates compensation to the victim’s family. Moreover, the quantum of compensation has been assessed after considering all relevant factors including age, income, and future prospects, and does not warrant interference. 7. In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that the learned Tribunal rightly passed the award after proper appreciation of the evidence and application of law. The appeal, therefore, lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Sd/-d/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena