1 2025:CGHC:20762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 335 of 2019 1 - Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office Office Through Its Authorised Officer, 205-MM Plaza, Ring-1, Near Khanij Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh...........(Insurer of Tractor & Trolley C.G. 14 ME 2176 and CG 14 -A 0259). ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Shivrati Bai W/o Late Naresh Ram Chouhan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Jumaikela, Thana- Kansabel, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh...........(Respondent/Claimant Wife of Deceased). 2 - Sukhmani Bai D/o Late Naresh Ram Chouhan Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Jumaikela, Thana- Kansabel, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh...........(Claimant No. 2 Daughter of Deceased), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Nilam Bai D/o Late Naresh Ram Chouhan Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Jumaikela, Thana- Kansabel, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh...........(Claimant No.3 Daughter of Deceased), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Navin Ram S/o Late Naresh Ram Chouhan Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Jumaikela, Thana- Kansabel, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.............(Claimant No. 4 S/o Deceased). 5 - Sikandar Ram Chouhan S/o Naresh Ram Chouhan Aged About 18 Years R/o Village- Jumaikela, Thana- Kansabel, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh...............(Claimant No. 5 S/o Deceased). 6 - Krishna Kumar Sai S/o Sukhnath Sai Paikra Aged About 39 Years R/o Sakin-Cheraghoghra, Chouki-Dokda, Thana-Kansabel, District- A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 Jashpur, Chhattisgarh................(Res No.1 Driver of Tractor No. CG 14 Me 2176). 7 - Sukhnath Sai S/o Lohra Sai Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Sakin Cheraghoghra, Chouki- Dokda, Thana-Kansabel, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh..........(Res. No. 2 Owner Of Trolley No. C.G. 14 A 0259 (Deceased). 7.1 - (A) Manpyari Bai W/o Late Sukhnath Sai Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Chheraghoghra, Chouki-Dokda, Thana- Kansabel, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Gaurishankar Sai Paikra R/o Village- Cheraghoghra, Chouki-Dokda, Thana- Kansabel, District- Jasphur, Chhattisgarh...........(Res. No.3 Owner of Tractor No. CG 14 ME 2176). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate with Mr. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 06 /05/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 05th July 2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Jashpur, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 53/2017. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, on 22.03.2017 the deceased Naresh Ram, had gone to Bandarchua relating to some bank work and while he was coming back on foot to his village Cheraghogra, respondent no.1 who was driving the Tractor No.C.G.14 ME 2176 in rash and negligent manner hit 3 the deceased Naresh Ram from behind, as a result, Naresh Ram fell down and the front wheel of the tractor ran over him. The deceased was admitted in Pathalgaon Hospital where he died on the same day. The claimants being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs. 42,50,000/- on various heads. 3. The learned claims Tribunal on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence brought on record awarded Rs.9,47,500/- as total compensation on various heads with interest @ 9% per annum and fastened the liability on the appellant. Hence, this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company argues that at the time of the accident, deceased Naresh Ram Chauhan was traveling in the offending vehicle tractor trolley whereas the seating capacity of the tractor is only for one driver and no additional premium was paid for his risk cover. In such a situation, the appellant Insurance Company is not responsible in any way for the risk of a person travelling illegally in the tractor. Therefore, the appeal be allowed and the Insurance Company be exonerated from the liability. 5. No one appears for respondents’ side. 6. Heard the the arguments of the parties present and minutely perused the record. 7. The claimant side has got examined the deceased's wife Shivrati Bai (A.W.1) who is not a witness to incident. She has submitted the certified copy of the charge sheet as Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-9. As per the facts emerged from her cross-examination, her husband was getting 4 up the tractor at the time of the accident and at that time when the driver suddenly drove the vehicle, he fell down and the accident occurred. The said statement is also based on hearsay. 8. The evidence of Kinjar Ram Chauhan (A.W.2) also shows that he reached the spot some time after the accident, therefore, he also did not see the accident. 9. The owner of the tractor, Gauri Shankar Sai, was examined from the non-applicant side and he states that he also did not see the accident. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion of the insurance company that the deceased was sitting in the tractor as a passenger. 10. Thus, none of the witnesses examined in the case is an eye witness to the incident. The driver of the offending vehicle, Krishna Kumar Sai, has not been examined against whom a charge-sheet has been filed by the police. 11. On behalf of the appellant insurance company, Head Constable Dinesh Pandey has been called in evidence, who has stated that the crime was registered by sub-inspector Raj Singh who was the police Station in-charge. Ganesh Ram, who lodged the first information, has not been examined. Head constable Dinesh Pandey has stated that the deceased's wife Shivrati Bai and Sikandar Ram had given a statement to him during the investigation that at the time of the accident, the deceased was coming sitting in the said tractor, but it is noteworthy that no witness of the incident spot has been examined. 12. According to the pleadings of the claimants, the deceased had 5 gone to village Bandarchua and when he was coming back to the village on foot , the tractor trolley hit him from behind and the accident occurred in which the front wheel of the tractor ran over him, causing his death. Head constable Dinesh Pandey, as the investigating officer of the case, has admitted at the end of cross-examination that he has found in the investigation that the front wheel of the tractor had run over the deceased Naresh Ram Chauhan. He also admitted that if a person sitting in the trolley falls, the rear wheel will roll over and not the front wheel. The investigating officer has stated that the lone witness at the scene was the driver of the offending vehicle, who was not called and examined by the appellant insurance company. 13. Thus, all the witnesses examined from both the sides are not witnesses of the spot. In the FIR and the police investigation, the fact has come to light that the deceased was travelling in a tractor. The entire charge sheet is not the substantive piece of evidence, but remains as a supportive evidence. 14. According to the pleadings of the claimants/respondents, the deceased was going on foot when the tractor hit him from behind and the front wheel ran over him, which led to the accident which stood firm by the statement of Head Constable Dinesh Pandey who was stated to be investigator by the appellant/insurance company. Therefore, the argument of the appellant company that the deceased was travelling in the guilty vehicle is not found to be acceptable. Thus, the argument raised by the appellant company is not found to be acceptable. The conclusion of the tribunal is not contrary to the facts and evidence 6 available on record, hence there is no need for interference. 15. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao