1 2025:CGHC:53981 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 403 of 2018 1 - Babulal Sahu S/o Late Mehattarlal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Narharpur P.S. Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Tractor) 2 - Smt. Roopa Sahu W/o Babulal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Narharpur P.S. Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Trolley) … Appellants versus 1 - Tulsiram Markam S/o Late Roop Singh Markam Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chanagaon Tahsil Nagari District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Chander Bai W/o Tulsiram Markam Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Chanagaon Tahsil Nagari District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Master Ravi Kumar S/o Tulsiram Markam Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Tulsiram Markam (Respondent No.1) (Father) R/o Village Chanagaon Tahsil Nagari District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ravendra Kumar Markam S/o Tulsiram Markam Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Tulsiram Markam (Respondent No.1) (Father) R/o Village Chanagaon Tahsil Nagari District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 5 - Chhannulal Yadav S/o Ramu Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Tractor And Trolley) 6 - IFCO Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. M.S. Silver Plaza Shop No. 205 Second Floor Opposite Udhog Bhawan Near Mining Office Ring Road No.1 Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Co. Of Tractor) 7 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Division Office Branch Dhamtari District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Co. Of Trolley) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.07 17:05:00 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 : None For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 04.11.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02, an application filed for withdrawal of power by Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan. 2. Upon due consideration of the grounds stated therein, the application (I.A. No. 02) is allowed. Mr. Tulsyan is permitted to withdraw his power on behalf of the appellants. 3. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar on behalf of the appellants is taken on record. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 5. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 09.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.54/2015 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 3 6. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, the deceased, Late Kishan Kumar Markam, lost his life in a road accident that occurred on 15.04.2015. On the date of the incident, the deceased was travelling on a tractor-trolley bearing registration No.CG-19-BD-1675 and CG-19-G-3670 (for short “offending vehicle). At the relevant time, non-applicant No.1, who was driving the said tractor, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, causing the tractor to turn turtle. As a result, the deceased fell from the trolley, sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the same. The matter was reported to the concerned Police Station, where a criminal case was registered against non-applicant No.1, and upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 7. The claimants have filed the claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.11,75,000/- on various heads. 8. Upon service of notice of the claim petition, the appellants as well as insurance company appeared before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and contested the claim by filing their written statement. The learned Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings and material available on record, framed five issues for adjudication of the claim case. The claimants, the owner, and the insurance company adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. 4 9. After considering the evidence and material placed on record, the learned Tribunal, by its award dated 09.08.2017, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,54,000/- in favour of the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and while exonerating the insurance company, fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal suffers from serious infirmities, which deserves to be modified and reduced. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the testimony of the witnesses examined before it and has recorded findings contrary to the evidence on record. The impugned award, being perverse and unsustainable, warrants interference by this Court. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants as well as the claimants. The Tribunal has incorrectly held that, at the relevant time of the incident, the deceased was seated on the tractor instead of the trolley, and consequently fastened liability on the insurance company by holding it not liable for payment of compensation. Such a finding, it is argued, is contrary to the material evidence and is bad in law. 5 11. Learned counsel further contends that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the insurance company had collected an extra premium under the policy, thereby covering the risk of the cleaner travelling on the trolley. The Tribunal has also ignored the fact that the insurance company did not examine any witness before the Tribunal to establish any breach of policy conditions. Moreover, the documents pertaining to the criminal case arising from the same incident do not support the case of the insurance company. Hence, the finding of breach of policy recorded by the Tribunal is wholly unjustified. 12. It is further argued that the insurance company failed to produce any clinching or cogent evidence to prove that, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being operated in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. No documentary or oral evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the alleged breach. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased. Furthermore, the Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 18, despite the fact that the deceased was a non- earning person, for whom the appropriate multiplier ought not to have been applied in the manner done. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is unsustainable and deserves to be suitably modified by this Court to meet the ends of justice. 6 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company supports the impugned award and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was travelling on the tractor at the time of the accident, which amounts to a clear violation of the policy terms. It is contended that the insurance policy did not cover the risk of a person travelling on the tractor, and therefore, the insurer cannot be held liable to pay compensation. It is further submitted that no credible evidence was produced by the claimants to prove that the deceased was travelling on the trolley as a cleaner, nor was any proof of employment or income adduced. Hence, the findings of the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for interference. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 15. The learned Claims Tribunal, in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the impugned award, has elaborately dealt with the issue regarding breach of policy conditions and has categorically held that at the time of the accident, the offending tractor was being driven by non-applicant No. 1, who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal, relying upon the testimony of Assistant Grade-III Jan Kumar Meshram from the RTO, Jagdalpur, rightly recorded a finding that the said licence had expired on 12.01.2013 and was renewed only on 20.05.2015, whereas the 7 accident occurred on 15.04.2015. Thus, during the intervening period, the driver was not duly licensed. 16. Further, the Tribunal has observed, on the basis of the evidence of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses, that at the time of the accident, several persons, including the deceased, were seated on the tractor, whereas the insurance policy covered only the risk of the driver and the owner, the seating capacity being limited to one person. The Tribunal also took into consideration the statement of the Legal Assistant Officer of the Insurance Company, who confirmed that no premium was paid to cover the risk of any passenger travelling on the tractor. 17. In view of these uncontroverted facts, the Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and since the driver was not holding a valid licence at the time of the accident, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the insured. 18. Upon careful reappraisal of the evidence and material available on record, this Court finds that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts and law while determining the liability. The evidence of the RTO official clearly establishes that at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending tractor did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, as his licence had expired on 12.01.2013 and was renewed only on 20.05.2015, i.e., after the date of the accident on 15.04.2015. Therefore, on the date of the 8 incident, the driver was not authorized to drive the offending vehicle. 19. Further, as per the insurance policy (Ex. D/4) and the statement of the Legal Officer of the Insurance Company, the insured tractor had a seating capacity of only one person i.e. the driver. The policy did not extend coverage to any other occupant travelling on the tractor or trolley. The deceased, however, was travelling on the tractor/trolley at the time of the accident, in violation of the prescribed seating capacity and policy conditions. The evidence of the investigating officer and eyewitnesses further corroborates that multiple persons were travelling on the tractor when it overturned, resulting in the death of the deceased. 20. In these circumstances, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the offending vehicle was being used in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and beyond its permissible seating capacity. Consequently, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner for such unauthorized use. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly fastened the liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability. 21. Accordingly, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. The appeal being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed, and the award passed by the Tribunal is affirmed in toto. 9 22. The record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh