1 2025:CGHC:36140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 219 of 2024 1 - Icici Lombard Insurance Company Ground Baniya Bhavan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Nandkishore Dewangan S/o Ramsharan Dewangan, 2 - Meena Dewangan, W/o. Nandkishore Dewangan Both are R/o Ward No. 10, Bairagpara Pandariya, Thana And Tehsil - Pandaria, District - Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 3 - Vikas Gupta, S/o. Gajanand Gupta Aged About 33 Years R/o Bairagpara Pandariya, District - Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 4 - Tihar Singh S/o Jhoolsingh Dhurve Aged About 65 Years R/o Gram Birkona, Thana - Pandariya, District - Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ---Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate For Respondents No. 4 : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 25/07/2025 1. Appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 04.11.2023 passed by Learned Additional Motor BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.12 11:17:29 +0530 2 Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 09/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicants-claimants therein under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 7,79,816/- as compensation, exonerated the insurance company from its liability of satisfying the award, issued direction of pay and recover. 2. The involvement of the offending vehicle, a Mahindra Tractor bearing registration number C.G.-07D-2773, driven in a rash and negligent manner by Non-Applicant No.1, in the accident that led to the death of the deceased, Rahul Dewangan, is not in dispute. The Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the direction issued by the learned Claims Tribunal to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, which could not have been issued in the facts of the case. Therefore, this Court is not dealing with the facts of accident as pleaded by the parties in their claim application, reply to the claim application and further adverted in the impugned award but only considering the ground raised by the insurance company as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in issuing the direction to the appellant/Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the non-applicant No.1 even after recording a finding that the offending vehicle was driven in breach of policy conditions, as on the date of accident, deceased was 3 travelling on the trolley attached with the tractor. He submits that as there is no sitting capacity in the tractor, no premium is charged for the occupant of the trolley, hence, the insurance company could not be held liable to pay the amount of compensation. In support of his contention he places reliance upon the decision of Balu Krishna Chavan vs. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 932; 2022 (2) TN MAC 593. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company and would submit that the Claims Tribunal justified in passing the impugned award and the direction to insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the amount so paid from the owner, driver of the offending vehicle. It is contended that the exoneration of insurance company is on the ground that there was breach of policy conditions as the deceased himself was travelling in the trolley attached to the tractor, however, considering the interest of the claimants has issued direction of pay and recover, which does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case. 6. In the facts of the case it is not in dispute that learned Claims tribunal considering that there was breach of conditions of the insurance policy, because the deceased was travelling on the trolley attached to the tractor had exonerated the insurance company, however, to protect the interest of the claimants, had issued a direction to the appellant/Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation 4 and recover the same. The said direction in the opinion of this Court is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kr. Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 796 as also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shivraj Vs. Rajendra & Another, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 432. 7. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal issuing direction of pay and recover. 8. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram