BRANCH MANAGER IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PILURAM
MAC/186/2022 · 2025-07-28
Shri Sanjay K Agrawal
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5211 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5211 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:37017
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 186 of 2022 Branch Manager Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Narmada Road, Near Mittal Gas, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.(Insurer Of Tractor No. Cg17 Km3451), District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
… Appellant versus 1 - Piluram S/o Late Dasharam Kashyap Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Tiruthun, Pujaripara, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 1), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Somari W/o Piluram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Tiruthun, Pujaripara, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 2), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Mahesh Kumar Kashyap S/o Lakhma Ram Kashyap Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Raikot, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.08.01 15:37:04 +0530
2 4 - Suloram S/o Guddi Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Mablibhata, Baktipara, Post Office Raikot, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 : Ms. Smriti Irani Saraf, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Judgment On Board 29.07
.2025
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) challenging the impugned award dated 29/09/2021 passed by Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 275/2019, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,60,000/- has been awarded in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 herein (claimants) for the death of Dulsai, aged about 17 years and the liability of payment of the said compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company).
2.
Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 25/08/2017 at about 05:30 PM, deceased Dulsai alongwith other agricultural labourers were travelling in a Tractor bearing Registration
3 No. CG 17 K M 3451 as a gratuitous passenger which was being driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner due to which deceased Dulsai fell and suffered serious injuries and died.
3.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that deceased Dulsai was sitting in the offending vehicle in the capacity of gratuitous passenger which is not covered by the insurance policy, therefore, the appellant (Insurance Company) would not be liable to pay the compensation amount and the impugned award is liable to be dismissed.
4.
Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants would support the impugned award and submit that the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, deceased Dulsai was sitting in the offending vehicle (Tractor) which was duly insured with the appellant (Insurance Company) and as per the statement of witness of the appellant (Insurance Company) namely Sunil Kumar (DW-1), who has clearly admitted in cross-examination that the insurance policy (Ex. A-NA-1) was a package policy in which insurance of owner, driver as well as third party was covered and apart from the driver and owner, everyone else sitting on the vehicle is third party. He has also admitted
4 that in respect to the insurance policy, premium of Rs. 4,852/- has been paid under the head of third party, Rs. 100/- for owner’s compensation and Rs. 50/- for driver’s compensation. Thus, the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the appellant (Insurance company) would be liable for payment of compensation to the claimants, in my considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not find any merit in this appeal.
7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet