Page No.1 of 5 IN MAC-1446-2022 2025:CGHC:42598 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1446 of 2022 [Arising out of award dated 16.09.2022, passed in Claim Case No.1373/2019 (Ku. Aaradhana v. Ramesh Kumar Chandra and another] by the 5th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG)] The New India Assurance Company Limited By Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Rama Trade Centre, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Police Station Tarbahar District Bilaspur (C.G.) Through Authorized Signatory Manager, Office Of T.P Claim Hub, The New India Assurance Company Limited 2nd Floor Rama Trade Center Opposite Rajiv Plaza Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Minor Ku. Aaradhana D/o Vishnu Nishad Aged About 4 Years Through Natural Guardian Father Vishnu Nishad, Aged 33 Years, S/o Manbodh Nishad R/o Village Bandabhra, Post Samaria, Police Station Jaijaipur, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).................... (Claimant) 2 - Ramesh Kumar Chandra S/o Premlal Chandra Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Arsiya Police Station Jaijaipur, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Driver And Owner Of Vehicle Tractor No. Cg- 11da-5174) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. BN Nande, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None through served. For Respondents No.2 : Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 21.08.2025 Page No.2 of 5 IN MAC-1446-2022 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant-Insurance Company is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 16.09.2022, passed in Claim Case No.1373/2019 (Ku. Aaradhana v. Ramesh Kumar Chandra and another] by the 5th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) (for short the “MACT”), whereby the claim application filed by the respondent No.01/claimant has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded to her on account of injuries sustained by her in the accident occurred on 28.04.2019, which amount is directed to be firstly pay by the appellant-Insurance Company and thereafter recovery from the owner and driver. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that in the present case, on the date of accident, the injured/claimant was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, whose risk was not covered under the insurance policy. Therefore, the learned MACT is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability to firstly pay the compensation upon the appellant- insurance company and thereafter recovery from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.02 would support the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival Page No.3 of 5 IN MAC-1446-2022 submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, a careful perusal of the record would show that learned MACT, after finding that the offending vehicle (i.e. Tractor being No. CG-11-DA-5174) was being plied in breach of terms of insurance policy, as the said Tractor was insured only for agricultural purpose, whereas, on the date of the accident, it was carrying passengers and the injured/claimant was also sitting in the said Tractor as a gratuitous passenger, held that the appellant (Insurance Company) would not be liable for payment of compensation to the claimants, and therefore, directed the appellant (Insurance Company) to pay the compensation to the claimant first and recover it from respondent No.2 herein i.e. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle (Tractor). However, it is the plea of the appellant (Insurance Company) that the order of pay and recover ought not to have been granted by the learned MACT. 6. At this stage, it would be profitable to notice the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Shivaraj v. Rajendra and Another1, wherein a similar set of facts and circumstances as the case in hand, their Lordships have held as under :- “10. The High Court, however, found in favour of Respondent 2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record unambigously pointed out that neither was any 1 (2018) 10 SCC 432 Page No.4 of 5 IN MAC-1446-2022 trailer insured nor any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person, namely, the driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (Respondent 2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to idemnify the owner of the tractor. The conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case. 11. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant claimant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh2, Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.3, Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.4 and including Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh (supra). In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent 2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to Respondent 2 insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, Respondent 1. 7. In view of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shivaraj (supra), I am of the considered opinion that learned MACT has rightly directed the appellant (Insurance Company) to pay the compensation amount to the claimant and thereafter, recover it from respondent No.02 herein i.e. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle. As such, the findings recorded by the learned MACT, in the considered opinion of this Court, is correct findings of fact based on evidence and same is neither 2 (2004) 3 SCC 297 3 (2018) 5 SCC 656 4 (2018) 8 SCC 492 Page No.5 of 5 IN MAC-1446-2022 perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award, passed by the learned MACT. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if