1 2025:CGHC:55110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1832 of 2019 * - ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Ground Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh..............Insurer, ... Appellant/Insurance Company Versus 1 - Smt. Pushpa Dhruv W/o Purushottam Dhruv, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Putpura, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.........Claimant 2 - Shiv Prasad S/o Bishesar Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Putpura, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh..........Driver 3 - Murlidhar Agrawal S/o Indrasen Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank, Pithoura, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh..............Owner ... Respondents For Appellant/ Insurance Company : Mr. Sourabh Sharma and Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocates For Respondents : None appeared, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 12/11/2025 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the liability part assailing award passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Claim Case No. H 12/2017 dated 23.08.2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.5,57,418/- with interest @ 7% per annum on account of injuries sustained by claimant, namely Smt. Pushpa Dhruv. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.11.13 13:33:59 +0530 2 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 29.04.2016 at about 07:00 pm claimant/respondent No. 1 namely Smt. Pushpa Dhruv and other persons had gone to Village Baijnath sitting on the offending vehicle Pickup bearing registration No. CG-06/M-0349 which was being driven by respondent No. 2 namely Shiv Prasad, owned by respondent No. 3 namely Murlidhar Agrawal and insured with appellant/Insurance Company, from where they were returning to their Village Putpura, respondent No. 2 driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, turned it turtle in between Village Temri to Bagar, as a result thereof, Smt. Pushpa Dhruv and other persons sustained grievous injuries. An F.I.R. under Section 279, 338 & 304A of IPC was lodged against respondent No. 2/driver of the offending vehicle at Police Station Kasdol. 3. The claimant filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming therein compensation of Rs.14,10,000/-. 4. The learned Tribunal, in the impugned award, has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,57,418/- in favour of the claimant with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization and fastened the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company along with respondent No.2 and 3 to pay compensation jointly and severally. It is also directed that the appellant/Insurance Company shall first indemnify the award. 5. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would argue that the claimant along with other passengers were traveling in Pickup Vehicle bearing registration No. CG 06 M 0349 on the fateful date i.e. on 29.04.2016. He would contend that due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its 3 driver, it turned turtle, resultantly the claimant sustained injuries. He would submit that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger and no premium was paid to cover the non-fare paying passenger, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law while fastening the liability with the Insurance Company. 6. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice. 7. I have heard Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company at length and perused record of the learned Claims Tribunal. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal has placed reliance on Rule 97(7) of CG Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 which reads as under:- “97. Carriage of person in Goods Carriage.- (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2) but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) such tractor-trailer other than those registered in the name of industrial organisation, Municipal Institutions, water supply institution and non-agricultural cooperative societies, and the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7300 Kgs. may be used for the following purposes- (i) for carrying labourers and the member of the family of agriculturist for the purpose of agriculture or any purpose connected with agriculture including sale and purchase of articles or agriculture. (ii)for carrying persons at the time of Mela, Markets, Religious Functions, Marriages and at other ceremonial occasions provided that the number of persons so carried shall not exceed 20 at a time.” 9. Bare reading of this provisions would make it clear that the tractor- trailer and unladen weight of which does not exceed 7300 Kgs. may be used for carrying labourers and the members of the family of agriculturist for the purpose of agriculture and for carrying persons at 4 the time of Mela, Markets, Religious Functions, Marriages and at other ceremonial occasions provided that the number of persons so carried shall not exceed 20 at a time. 10. The offending vehicle is Pickup and admittedly its unladen weight was below 7300 Kgs., but the provisions of Rule 97(7) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 would not attract because it was not tractor-trailer and it was not used to carry labourers and the member of the family of agriculturist. The claimant in claim petition has specifically stated that she along with others had gone to village Baijnath and while they were returning, they took lift, thus, it can be presumed that the claimant was neither labourer nor member of the family of the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, in my opinion, the provisions of Rule 97 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 would not attract. 11. The Insurance Policy would show that no extra premium was paid by owner of the offending vehicle for non-fare paying passenger or labourer. Thus, the life of the gratuitous passenger traveling in the Pickup was not covered. The claimant herself has admitted in her evidence that she was a passenger in the offending vehicle. The evidence of the claimant cannot be ignored as she is a truthful witness. 12. Admittedly, the claimant was gratuitous passenger and the policy did not cover her life. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law while fastening liability with the Insurance Company. The claimant was permitted to travel in the offending vehicle by the driver of the vehicle, therefore, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle shall be liable to make payment of compensation. 13. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company at the time of accident and driver did 5 have valid driving licence, therefore, the principles of pay and recover would apply. The Insurance Company shall first indemnify the award and thereafter recover it from driver and owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti