1 2025:CGHC:10544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1303 of 2016 Reserved on 25.02.2025 Delivered on 04.03.2025 Smt. Rajni Joshi, Aged About 22 Years, W/o Late Shri Manoj Joshi, D/o Shri Manohar Lal Tiwari, R/o- Quarter No.2/8, Nootan Colony, Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Anupam Chowk, Bastar, Chhattisgarh -494001 ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. C A V O R D E R 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 28.06.2016 passed by 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.152/2015 whereby the claim application preferred by the appellant has been rejected. 2. The gist of claim before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on 25.05.2013, deceased Manoj Joshi was participating in the Congress Parivartan Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.03.06 10:50:49 +0530 2 Yatra Rally and was driving his own vehicle i.e. Bolero bearing registration No. CG 17 D 1135. At about 04.30 p.m., when the Parivartan Yatra Rally was passing through Jheeram Ghati in Darbha of Bastar District, the Naxals exploded bomb planted underground there, due to which Manoj Joshi along with many other persons participating in the Rally died on the spot. The accident was reported in Darbha Police Station on which FIR No.25/13 was registered under several sections of IPC along with Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act. 3. The claimant who is the wife of deceased Manoj Joshi filed a claim application under section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.70,00,000/-. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, vide impugned order dated 28.06.2016, dismissed her claim, on the ground that the deceased was the owner and driver of the vehicle in question and he had not paid any premium for personal accident, against which, the present appeal has been filed by the wife of the deceased. 4. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the premium of Rs.450/- was paid for unnamed persons under which the risk of the deceased is also covered, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim application. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the present appeal by awarding suitable compensation. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of dismissal is just and proper and does not require any interference. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In the case, the owner of the vehicle in question was deceased Manoj Joshi who himself was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident. 3 Therefore, he does not fall under third party. The claim application was filed against the insurance company as the deceased was the owner and driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim application on the ground that the policy does not reflect that any premium was paid by the deceased for his personal accident. The premium was paid for paid driver, employee and unnamed persons i.e. the passengers. The contention of the appellant is that the deceased comes under unnamed persons. 8. The insurance policy of the vehicle has been brought on record marked as Ex.P-5. As per the policy Ex. P-5, the premium paid is as follows:- Basic TP 2,853.00 PA for Unnamed persons 450.00 Employee of Insured 50.00 The policy also contains the following endorsement:- “This policy is subject to terms and conditions and IMT Endorsement Nos. printed herein/attached hereto 16, 22 & 29” Other conditional documents were not attached with the policy Ex. P- 5. The said conditional documents have been submitted by the Insurance Company along with I.A. No.01/2025 in which IMT-16 reads as under:- IMT. 16. Personal accident to unnamed passengers other than Insured and the paid driver and cleaner (for vehicles rated as Private cars and Motorised two wheelers (not for hire or reward) with or without side car) “In consideration of the payment of an additional premium it is hereby understood and agreed that the insurer undertakes to pay compensation on the scale provided below for bodily injuries hereinafter defined sustained by any passenger other than the insured and/or the paid driver attendant or cleaner and/or a person in the employ of the insured coming within the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and subsequent amendments of the said Act…..” 4 9. From the details mentioned in IMT Nos. 16, 22, & 29 particularly IMT No.16 it is clear that the passenger other than the insured and/or the paid driver attendant or cleaner and/or a person in the employ of the insured coming within the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 comes under unnamed person but the owner who himself was driving the vehicle does not fall under unnamed person. Therefore, his risk would not be covered under the policy. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any irregularity or error in the impugned order of dismissal of the claim application calling for interference. Accordingly, this appeal of the appellant/claimant is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai