1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 834 of 2018 1 - ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Ground Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Geeta Swarnkar W/o Late Dhirendra Swarnkar Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bodnapal 2, Post Bhanpuri, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Ritu Swarnkar D/o Late Dhirendra Swarnkar Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Geeta Swarnkar, R/o Village Bodnapal 2, Post Bhanpuri, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Vaishali D/o Late Dhirendra Swarnkar Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Geeta Swarnkar, R/o Village Bodnapal 2, Post Bhanpuri, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Prerna Swarnkar D/o Late Dhirendra Swarnkar Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Geeta Swarnkar, R/o Village Bodnapal 2, Post Bhanpuri, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 5 - Ramvishesh Jha S/o Late Visheshwar Jha R/o Khaspara, Village Bhanpuri, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 858 of 2018 1 - ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Ground Floor, Devendra Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Janki Jha W/o Late Sunil Jha Aged About 27 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar Ward, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur, P.S. Kotma, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Shivam Jha S/o Late Sunil Jha Aged About 5 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Janki Jha, R/o Rajendra Nagar Ward, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur, P.S. Kotma, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramvishesh Jha S/o Late Visheshwar Jha R/o Khaspara, Village Bhanpuri, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant/Insurance :- Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on Company behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 :-Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 3 09.12.2025 1. Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of the same accident that occurred on 29.01.2013, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the awards dated 16.02.2018 passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.), whereby the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,42,000/- in Claim Case No. 156/2016 and Rs. 7,84,000/- in Claim Case No. 155/2016, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the applications till their realization, in favour of the respective claimants, while fastening the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the said awards, the appellant–Insurance Company has preferred the present appeals, challenging the fastening of liability upon it. 3. As per averments made in the claim petition, on the fateful day of the incident i.e. 29.01.2013, deceased- Sunil Kumar Jha along with his friend Dheerendra Swarankar, was driving a Maruti van bearing registration No. CG-04-HB-7502 (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle’), owned by Respondent No. 1, in the course of his employment as a driver. He was proceeding towards Jagdalpur to attend an engagement ceremony at the house of a relative of Respondent No. 1. When the offending vehicle 4 reached near the Taragaon forest area, it suddenly went out of control and collided with a truck coming from the opposite direction, i.e., from Raipur towards Jagdalpur. As a result of the said collision, both Sunil Kumar Jha and Dheerendra Swarankar sustained grievous injuries and died. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. 4. On claim petition being filed by the respective claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10,25,000/- respectively under various heads, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an awards as mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the limited liability of the Insurance Company under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is submitted that, as per the policy, the liability in respect of the death of the driver is restricted to a sum of ₹2,00,000/-, as the premium paid covered the driver only to that extent. Similarly, in respect of the occupant of the vehicle, the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to ₹1,00,000/- only. Despite these explicit limitations, the Tribunal erroneously fastened the entire liability upon the Insurance Company and awarded compensation of ₹7,42,000/- and ₹7,84,000/-, respectively. He further submits that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law in imposing unlimited liability on the 5 Insurance Company in contravention of the express terms of the insurance policy. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned awards are unsustainable. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 supports the impugned awards. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Upon perusal of the record and the insurance policy, it is evident that the premium was paid to cover the driver only up to a sum of ₹2,00,000/-. Further, an additional premium of ₹400/- was paid to cover eight occupants, which clearly indicates coverage limited to ₹1,00,000/- per occupant. Accordingly, the liability of the Appellant/Insurance Company can be fastened only to the extent of ₹2,00,000/- in respect of the deceased driver and ₹1,00,000/- in respect of each occupant. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, both the appeals are allowed in part. The impugned awards passed by the Tribunal fastening the entire liability upon the appellant–Insurance Company are hereby modified. It is held that the liability of the appellant– Insurance Company shall be limited strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, namely: (i) The liability in respect of the death of the driver shall be restricted to a sum of ₹2,00,000/-; and (ii) The liability in respect of each occupant of the vehicle shall be restricted to a sum of 6 ₹1,00,000/-. The remaining compensation amount, over and above the aforesaid limits, shall be payable by the owner of the offending vehicle. 10. The amounts, if any, already deposited or paid by the appellant–Insurance Company in excess of its limited liability shall be refunded to it, in accordance with law. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha