1 2025:CGHC:55093 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1510 of 2019 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Plot No. 1, 4th Floor, Near Maruti Showroom, G.E Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Jawaharlal Vishwakarma S/o Late Shri Bishoharam Vishwakarma Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Behnakadi, Thana Mandir Hasod, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhushanlal @ Bhushan Ram Sahu S/o Ram Dayal Sahu R/o Bhotadiah, Thana Suhela, District Balodabazaar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - K.S Sanjay S/o K.K Salgunan R/o C.C.M Ring Road 2, Gondwara, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tapesh Chole S/o Mahesh Chole R/o Tarun Nagar, Pandri, Shankar Nagar Road, Thana Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.2 & 4 : Mr. Krishnakant Prajapti, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 2 12/11/2025 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the liability by filing this appeal against award passed by the learned First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No. 315/2017, dated 10.05.2019, whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,84,000/- with interest @ 9 % per annum on account of death of Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of the death of Ganesh Ram Vishwakarma, inter alia, on the ground that on 24.02.2016, at about 10:00 a.m., the driver of the offending vehicle (CG-04-J-4651), respondent No. 2, while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, turned the vehicle turtle over the deceased. As a result, the deceased was crushed under the offending vehicle and died on the spot. He was 32 years of age at the time of the accident and was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. The claimants claimed total sum of Rs. 18,00,000/-. The respondents (driver, owner, and Insurance Company) filed their reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. 3. Learned Tribunal framed issues and parties led evidence, thereafter, the award was passed. 4. Mr. Mahishwar would argue that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a light goods vehicle, which had no seating capacity for passengers. He would submit that the learned Tribunal failed to consider this aspect and wrongly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. He would further submit that the law officer of the Insurance Company was examined and he proved this fact. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned award may be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose and submit that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger, rather, he was a labourer, he was engaged by owner of the 3 offending vehicle. The vehicle was insured with insurance company. According to the seating capacity premium was paid to cover the life of 4+1 employees. 6. They would contend that neither in the RC book nor in the policy, the place of seating place was specified, therefore, the plea taken by the insurance company has been discarded by the learned Tribunal. He would pray that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard. 8. Perusal of the Insurance document would show that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 4+1 and accordingly premium was paid. The deceased was labourer engaged by the owner of the offending vehicle to load unload bricks as pleaded & proved by the claimants. 9. The learned Tribunal has recorded finding that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently, which resulted in the accident and the deceased lost his life. 10.The insurance Company failed to conduct any investigation in this regard and its witness could not establish the fact that no premium was paid to cover the life of 4+1 employees of the offending vehicle. 11.Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 12.Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Pending IAs are also disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim