1 2025:CGHC:60930 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 220 of 2019  The Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Limited (Actual Name Of The Appellant Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited ) Through Branch Manager ,second Floor Simran Tower Infront Of L.I.C. Building Pandri Raipur (As Per Of Vehicle Application Insurer No. Cg 17 - G- 6479), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1. Smt. Hiramani Baghel Wd/o Late Rakesh Baghel Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Dongrigudha Para ,post Baghmohalai ,thana Bhanpuri ,district Bastar Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 2. Somaruram Baghel S/o Late Chachendi Baghel Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Dongrigudha Para ,post Baghmohalai ,thana Bhanpuri ,district Bastar Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 3. Smt. Badanti Baghel W/o Somaruram Baghel Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Dongrigudha Para ,post Baghmohalai ,thana Bhanpuri ,district Bastar Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 4. Bhaduram Kashyap S/o Ramnath Kashyap Aged About 25 Years R/o Chalangudhapara ,village Ulnar ,thana Nagarnar ,district Bastar Chhattisgarh.(As Per Claim Application Driver Of Vehicle Tractor Registeration No. Cg. 17-G-6479) 5. Smt. Shanti Bai Joshi W/o Parmanand Joshi R/o Village Patelpara Bhatpal ,bastar Police Chawki Bastar District Bastar Chhattisgarh..(As Per Claim Application Owner Of Vehicle Tractor Register No. Cg. 17-G6479) --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 216 of 2019  The Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Limited (Actual Name Of The Appellant- Cholamandalam M S General Insurance Company Limited), Through Branch Manager, Second Floor, Simran Tower, In Front Of L I C Building, Pandri , Raipur....................As Per Claim Application Insurer Of Vehicle Tractor Registration No. C G-17 G 6479. ---Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Samli Baghel Wd/o Late Madhu Allies Kamluram Baghel Aged About SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.12.16 14:27:33 +0530 2 45 Years R/o Village Kotekama Para, Post Baghmohlai, Thana Bhanpuri District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Fulo Bhaghel D/o Late Madhu Allies Kamluram Baghel Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Kotekama Para, Post Baghmohlai, Thana Bhanpuri District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3. Shamlal Baghel S/o Late Madhu Allies Kamluram Baghel Aged About 17 Years (Minor) Representing Through Mother Res. No.1 Smt. Samli Baghel, R/o Village Kotekama Para, Post Baghmohlai, Thana Bhanpuri District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 4. Bhaduram Kashyap S/o Ramnath Kashyap Aged About 25 Years R/o Chalangudhapara, Village Ulnar, Thana Nagarnar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.......................As Per Claim Application Driver Of Vehicle Tractor Registration No. C G-17 G 6479. 5. Smt. Shanti Bai Joshi W/o Paranand Joshi R/o Village Patelpara Bhatpal, Bastar, Police Chawki Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh..................As Per Claim Application Owner Of Vehicle Tractor Registration No. C G-17 G 6479. --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 218 of 2019  The Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Limited (Actual Name Of The Appellant- Cholamandalam M S General Insurance Company Limited), Through Branch Manager, Second Floor, Simran Tower, In Front Of L I C Building, Pandri , Raipur....................As Per Claim Application Insurer Of Vehicle Tractor Registration No. C G-17 G 6479., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Gure Kashyap Wd/o Late Keshboram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Dongrigudha Para, Post Baghmohlai, Thana Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2. Bandhuram Kashyap S/o Late Keshboram Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Dongrigudha Para, Post Baghmohlai, Thana Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3. Pareshwar Kashyap S/o Late Keshboram Aged About 17 Years Minor ,r/o Village Dongrigudha Para, Post Baghmohlai, Thana Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 4. Bhaduram Kashyap S/o Ramnath Kashyap Aged About 25 Years R/o Chalangudhapara, Village Ulnar, Thana Nagarnar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.......................As Per Claim Application Driver Of Vehicle Tractor Registration No. C G-17 G 6479. 5. Smt. Shanti Bai Joshi W/o Paranand Joshi R/o Village Patelpara Bhatpal, Bastar, Police Chawki Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh..................As Per Claim Application Owner Of Vehicle Tractor Registration No. C G-17 G 6479. --- Respondent(s) 3 For Appellant/Insurance : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate holding the brief Company of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate For Respondents No. 4 & 5/ : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate Driver & Owner For Claimants : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.12 .2025 1. The Insurance Company has filed these three appeals challenging the award passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Claim Case Nos. 92/2018, 94/2018 and 93/2018 dated 26.09.2018. 2. The brief facts are that on 21.03.2018 at about 3:30 pm near Village Retavand, Jagdalpur, Bastar deceased Rakesh Baghel was going on his motorcycle along with his friends namely Mahendra and Thabir, at the same time, the driver of the offending Tractor bearing registration No. CG 17 G 6479 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle, resultantly, all three riders sustained injuries and succumbed to death. 3. The widow and parents of Rakesh Baghel filed Claim Case No. 92/2018 inter alia on the ground that on the date of accident age of the deceased was 25 years and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. They claimed a sum of Rs. 30,92,000/-. The learned Tribunal after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence passed an award to the tune of Rs. 9,77,200/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and fastened liability with the Insurance Company. 4. The mother and siblings of deceased Mahendra filed Claim Case No. 94/2018, wherein, they pleaded that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 22 years and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal after due appreciation of evidence passed an award to the tune of 4 Rs. 7,50,400/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 5. The mother and siblings of Thabir Kashyap filed Claim Case No. 93/2018, wherein, they pleaded that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 19 years and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. They claimed a sum of Rs. 22,28,000/-. The learned Tribunal after due appreciation of evidence passed an award to the tune of Rs. 7,50,400/-. 6. Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate appearing for Insurance Company would submit that only insurance proposal was issued for insurance of the offending vehicle and no policy was issued to cover any kind of risk. He would submit that the learned Tribunal committed error of law while fastening liability upon the Insurance Company in absence of Insurance Policy. He would further contend that three persons were on a bike in contravention to the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules, and therefore also, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the compensation. He would pray to set-aside the awards passed by the learned Tribunal in three claim cases. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan would submit that the issue of insurance proposal was not raised before the learned Tribunal by the Insurance Company. He would contend that neither in the reply filed to claim petitions nor in evidence the Insurance Company took this plea before the learned Tribunal and first time this issue is being raised before this Court. With regard to three persons on a motorbike, Mr. Goverdhan would contend that it may be an offence according to the Motor Vehicle Rules, but on this ground alone the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from its liability. He would submit that these appeals deserve to be dismissed. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjusha & ORS. vs. United 5 India Assurance Company Limited & ANR. passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5885 of 2019. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Admittedly, three persons namely Rakesh Baghel, Mahendra, Thabir Kashyap lost their lives in motor accident. Claim petitions were filed by their legal representatives according to the provisions of Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act. The Insurance Company filed reply in all three claim cases. Perusal of reply would show that no specific plea was taken to the effect that only proposal for Insurance policy was issued in favour of the owner of the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company took a plea in the reply that there were three persons on a motorbike in contravention to the Motor Vehicle Rules. 10. It is well settled principle of law that pleadings and proof of such pleadings; by valid evidence led, is the crux and core of any adjudicatory process. There can be no proof offered without specific pleadings. The award would indicate that the pleadings with regard to proposal of insurance was not taken by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal and first time this issue is being raised before this Court. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue in the matter of Manjusha (supra), in para 11 and 13 held as under :- 11. When the contention of limited liability was neither taken before the Tribunal nor even in the memorandum of appeal filed, there was no reason for the High Court to look into the policy document to find limited liability; which again is urged before us on the basis of an extract of the Indian Motor Tariffs, termed to be a guideline issued, with respect to insurance policies, by the Tariff Advisory 6 Committee. By the guidelines it is intended that a comprehensive regulatory framework governing the structure, terms, conditions and premium rates applicable to Motor Vehicle policies in India is created. It is stated that the IMT is binding on all general insurance companies, operating in the Country and ensures uniformity and fairness in underwriting motor insurance risk. No doubt, the guidelines issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee regulates the issuance of the policies by the insurers but unless it is specified in the insurance policy, it cannot bind the insured. 13. In this context, we cannot but notice Ramkhiladi v United India Insurance Co.1, in which there was a contention taken by the claimant that the deceased was employed by the owner of the vehicle, the motor bike. It was held in paragraph 9.3 that no evidence was led by the claimants to prove that the deceased driver was an employee of the owner. Pleadings and proof of such pleadings; by valid evidence led, is the crux and core of any adjudicatory process. Trite is the principle that there can be no proof offered without specific pleadings. The limited liability was not pleaded, by the insurance company, either before the Tribunal, as we see from the award made, nor in the appeal filed before the High Court as we see from the memorandum of appeal filed before the High Court. 12. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts & law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the argument advanced by Mr. Ashish Pandey with regard to proposal of Insurance policy cannot be accepted. 13. With regard to next contention of Mr. Pandey that three persons were on the motorbike, it may be an offence according to the Motor Vehicle Rules, but on this ground alone the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from its liability, and therefore, this ground is also not available to the Insurance Company. 1 (2020) 2 SCC 550 7 14. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the awards passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant