1 2025:CGHC:49778 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 487 of 2019 1 - Hemkishan Sahu S/o Daulal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Rohasi, Thana Palari, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kishan Lal Sahu S/o Pyarilal Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Samoda, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Krishna Bai W/o Mohan Dhruw Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Rohasi, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Ramayan Chauk, Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda, District Bilapsur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mohan Dhruv S/o Supeti Dhruv Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Rohasi, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Ramayan Chauk, Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda, District Bilapsur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Dhaneswari Dhruv D/o Mohan Dhruv Aged About 14 Years Minor Through His Guardian Mother Namely Krishna Bai R/o Village Rohasi, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Ramayan Chauk, Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda, District Bilapsur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Laxmi Dhruv D/o Mohan Dhruv Aged About 12 Years Minor Through His Guardian Mother Namely Krishna Bai R/o Village Rohasi, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Ramayan Chauk, Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda, District Bilapsur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku. Bhagwati Dhruv D/o Mohan Dhruv Aged About 9 Years Minor Through His Guardian Mother Namely Krishna Bai R/o Village Rohasi, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Ramayan Chauk, Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda, District Bilapsur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh NIRMALA RAO 2 6 - Jethuram Verma S/o Dhaniram Verma Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Manth, Thana Kharora,district Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Owner Of Trolly), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Ifco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, 1st Floor, Glexi Hightes, Near, Icici Bank Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Co.), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Shri Arvind Prasad, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Ms. Diksha Jaiswal, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent No.7 : Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate alongwith Shri Praveen Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.10.2025 1. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 29.11.2018, passed in Claim Case No.562 of 2017 by the learned Eighth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Bilaspur, whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.9,88,952/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Sushil Kumar Dhruv. 2. The facts of the present case are that deceased – Sushil Kumar Dhruv was travelling on 19.2.2017 in a Tractor-Trolley bearing registration Nos.C.G. 04 LJ/ 8312 and C.G.-04-LI/2375 alongwith other labourers, The vehicle was driven by Hemkishan Sahu (appellant No.1) owned by Kishan Lal Sahu (appellant No.2) and insured by respondent No.7/ Iffco 3 Tokio General Insurance Company Limited. When the vehicle reached near ITBT Camp, village Manth, police station Kharora, District Raipur its driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, resultantly, Sushil Kumar Dhruv fell from the Tractor-Trolley and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to a hospital in Raipur for treatment where he was declared dead. A merg intimation was lodged by one Bhuwan Singh, son of Kamaldev Dhruv, resident of Rohani, police station Palari, District Baloda Bazar on the same date wherein, the entire incident was narrated. 3. A claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the widow, parents and sisters of the deceased interalia on the ground that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 19 years old and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The driver, owner and Insurance Company filed their reply to the claim application and denied its contents. Learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and award was passed to the tune of Rs.9,88,952/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of application and liability was fastened on the driver and owner of the vehicle as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/ driver and owner of the vehicle would submit that the deceased was not an occupant of the Tractor- Trolley rather he was a third party. He would contend that the Tractor- Trolley got turned turtle and the deceased individual was crushed, consequently, he died. He would contend that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have fastened liability with the Insurance Company. He would pray to allow this appeal. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that deceased – Sushil Kumar Dhruv was travelling in a Tractor-Trolley and this fact is evident from the merg intimation Ex.P/1 lodged by one Bhuwan Singh. They would further submit that the witness, namely Dushyant Yadav (AW-2) has deposed that the deceased was travelling in the Tractor-Trolley and fell due to rash and negligent driving by appellant No.1. They would contend that the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. They would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of Ex.P/1 would reveal that deceased – Sushil Kumar Dhruv and other labourers were travelling in the Tractor-Trolley on the fateful day. The vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver – appellant No.1, as a result of which the deceased fell from the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. 8. Dushyant Yadav (AW-2) has supported the contents of merg intimation. 9. There is no dispute as to the nature and type of vehicle involved, which is a "Tractor-Trolley". Admittedly, there is only one seat in the Tractor, which is exclusively for the diver. Nobody else is intended to be carried in the Tractor or the Trolley, except for transporting goods for agricultural purpose (in the Trolley). The issue of whether the risk of a person travelling in a goods vehicle is covered under a policy issued under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223. Overruling its earlier 5 decision in New India Assurance Company vs. Satpal Singh And Others reported in (2000) 1 SCC 237, the Supreme Court categorically held that no passenger is entitled to travel in a goods carriage, except in the capacity of owner/representative of the goods or as an employee of the insured. 10. Furthermore, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma and Others reported in (2008) 1 SCC 423, the Supreme Court clarified that if an authorized person (owner/representative of the goods or employee of the insured) is travelling in a goods vehicle, such person must be in the 'cabin' of the vehicle, depending upon the number of seats available, and not on the platform or elsewhere. In the present case, the vehicle involved was a 'Tractor-Trolley which has no cabin or seating arrangement for passengers, but for the one any only seat available for the driver of the vehicle. This being the position, the deceased, stated as a labourer and travelling in the Trolley at the relevant time, was not authorized to have undertaken any such travel and such an instance does not come within the purview of the policy issued by the Appellant, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court.” 11. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, merg intimation, the evidence of Dushyant Yadav (AW-2) and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, in my opinion the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened liability on the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 12. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi