1 2025:CGHC:55333 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 824 of 2019  The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Near Ambedkar Chowk Manendragarh Raod Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Insurer Company), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Ravindra Kumar Rajwade S/o Rajan Ra Rajwade Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Parsodikala Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.(Claimnts), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Ramprasad Rajwade S/orajan Ram Rajwade Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Parsodikala Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.(Claimnts), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. Rajan Ram Rajwade S/o Shivbalak Ram Rajwade Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Parsodikala Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.(Claimnts), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4. Ramgopal Pando S/o Viguram Aged About 33 Years R/o Pandopara, Thakhatpur, Police Station Jaynagar, Tahsil And District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5. Pradeep Kumar Kashyap S/o Arjun Prasad Kashyap R/o Mission Chowk Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) with MAC No. 828 of 2019  The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Near Ambedkar Chowk Manendragarh Road Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Insurer Co.), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1. Umesh S/o Manbodh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Parsodikala Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Kheman S/o Manbodh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Parsodikala Police SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.11.14 15:20:14 +0530 2 Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. Devan S/o Manbodh Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Parsodikala Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4. Manbodh S/o Bhajjuram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Parsodikala Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5. Ramgopal Pando S/o Viguram Aged About 33 Years R/o Pandopara, Thakurpur, Police Station Jaynagar Tahsil And District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6. Pradeep Kumar S/o Arjun Prasad Kashyap R/o Mission Chowk Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.(Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant/Insurance company : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondents : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.11 .2025 1. Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates have filed power for respondents, but they failed to appear in two rounds. 2. These two appeals have been filed by the Insurance company against two awards passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Claim Case No. 49/2018 (Umesh and others vs. Ramgopal Pando and others) and Claim Case No. 50/2018 (Ravindra Kumar Rajwade and others vs. Ramgopal Pando and others), whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,05,600/- on account of death of Smt. Maheshwari Bai and Rs. 4,26,400/- on account of death of Smt. Seeta Devi. 3. Facts in brief are that the deceased persons namely Smt. Maheshwari Bai and Smt. Seeta Devi were going to Ambikapur market to sell their vegetables in offending vehicle on 07.03.2017 along with other persons. 3 The driver of the offending vehicles, drove it rashly and negligently, resultantly, it turned turtle and the passengers sustained grievous injuries. Smt. Maheshwari Bai and Smt. Seeta Devi succumed to death on account of injuries during course of treatment. Two separate claim cases were filed for grant of compensation by their legal representatives. 4. The Insurance company filed replies in both the Claim Cases No. 49/2018 and 50/2018 and took plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving it in absence of valid documents. The driver did not have valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. Two deceased persons and other persons were gratuitous passengers in a goods carriage vehicle and the vehicle was being driven in breach of the condition of the Insurance policy; therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the compensation. The learned Tribunal framed issues; parties led evidence; the learned Tribunal considered the issues raised by the Insurance company at length, and thereafter, awards were passed. 5. Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate appearing for the Insurance company would argue that the offending vehicle was Metador/Goods carriage vehicle and there was no seating capacity for passengers. He would further submit that the deceased were gratuitous passengers in the goods carriage vehicle and no premium was paid to cover their life; therefore, the learned Tribunal committed error of law while fastening liability with the Insurance company. It is also argued that the major children of two deceased are claimants in both the petitions and they were not dependant on the income of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of income of the deceased persons for their personal and living expenses. He would contend that the claimants have exaggerated the income of the deceased. He would pray to set-aside the awards passed by 4 the learned Tribunal. 6. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice. 7. I have heard Mr. Tulsyan at length and perused the record at utmost circumspection. 8. Admittedly, the deceased persons were travelling in a goods carriage vehicle along with their vegetables. They were going to Ambikapur to sell their vegetables. They were owner of the goods and travelling in the offending vehicle as a representative. 9. The Insurance company examined Vinay Kumar Singh NAW/1, who stated that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have the valid driving licence to drive heavy vehicle. 10. The learned Tribunal has recorded specific finding that the driver had Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence and the weight of the offending vehicle was 5,300 kg; therefore, according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rambha Devi & Ors reported in (2023) 4 SCC 723, the driver was competent to drive the offending vehicle as LMV driving licence permits the driver to operate transport vehicles with an unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kg. 11. Vinay Kumar Singh/NAW1 further stated that deceased were travelling as gratuitous passengers but Insurance company failed to examine any eye- witness of the accident. AW/1 Smt. Savitri, who was an eye-witness stated that after payment of fare, they were travelling in the offending vehicle along with the vegetables. The evidence adduced by Smt. Savitri could not be rebutted by the Insurance Company. 5 12. In the matter of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prem Bai and others reported in 2016 ACJ 1634, High Court of Madhya Pradesh while dealing with the similar issue in para 5 and 6 held as under :- “5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the appellant took a plea that the deceased Jairam was a passenger in the goods vehicle, and therefore the Insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. However, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant are dependent upon the evidence adduced by the parties. Manoj, owner of the tent house has stated on oath that the deceased was working as a Manager and electric mechanic (Electrician) for his tent house and he was taking luggage of tent house to a particular place according to the order given to the tent house. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited attention of this Court to para 6 and 7 of his statement that he did not keep any account to show that the deceased was working in his shop. It was also alleged that Santosh and Arjun were also sitting on the luggage in the loading tempo, and therefore the vehicle was being plied against the policy condition. However, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It is admitted that the deceased Jairam was travelling along with the luggage of the tent house, and therefore if the owner of the tent house has stated that he was the Manager of the tent house and he was going with the luggage as his representative, then if no written record has been shown, the testimony of Manoj is duly corroborated by the circumstances, in which the accident took place and Jairam had expired. It is proved by the witnesses that the deceased was going as a representative of owner of the goods loaded in the tempo, and therefore according to the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be said that the policy conditions were violated or the Insurance Company was absolved from its liability. The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed his reliance upon the judgment of Honble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and others, 2008 (2) TN MAC 29 (SC) : 2008 (2) TAC 374 (SC), in which it is held that the representative of the owner of the goods can travel in the goods vehicle. In para 17 of that judgment, it is mentioned that it is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin 6 of the vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellant stand on para 17 of that judgment that the deceased was not travelling in a cabin, and therefore he was not the representative of the owner of the goods. 6. If the entire judgment of the Apex Court is perused, then it is decided that the owner of the goods and his representative can travel in the goods vehicle and the Insurance Company is laible to pay compensation. In the present case, the vehicle was a small auto rickshaw type loading vehicle in which there was no cabin so that the owner of the goods could sit in the cabin. In the case of Cholleti Bharatamma (supra) the Apex Court did not express the view that if a representative of the owner of the goods is not sitting in the cabin then it would be the violation of the policy condition. Hence it is not so material that the deceased was sitting in the cabin or not.” 13. Likewise, in the matter of Sanjeev Gupta and Others vs. Rampal and Others, reported in 2011 ACJ 2397, the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) while placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where several small shopkeepers were travelling in the truck along with their goods, truck met with accident, passengers received injuries and a few succumbed to their injuries, in such a situation, the Insurance company would be liable and the passengers cannot be treated as gratuitous passengers, relevant para 8 and 9 are reproduced herein-below :- “8. The argument of the counsel for the Insurance Company is that no evidence has been led in regard to receipt of fare from the deceased and no such evidence was led by the owner of the truck that the fare was accepted by the driver and they were bona fide passengers. However, no such pleading has been made in the written statement by the insurance company, wherein it has been stated that the deceased was not in the trade of vegetable selling and she was only a gratuitous passenger. The denial being a vague denial in the written statement and there is no evidence on record to cull out anything contrary to the statement of PW 2 and also considering the fact that in the same accident in respect of the other 7 deceased, the Tribunal has passed an award, wherein it has been held that the deceased was a merchant and he was travelling along with the goods and the said judgment and award has also been accepted by the insurance company and has not been challenged in any higher forum. Nature of the journey in the aforesaid circumstances, cannot be doubted and it has to be held that certain small shopkeepers were travelling in the truck on the fateful day along with their goods and in such circumstances they cannot be termed to be gratuitous passengers, but in fact they were bonafide passengers travelling along with their goods. 9. In order to give support to his arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance CompanyLimited, (2001) ACJ 1565 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has considered the issue at length and came to the conclusion that if a person is travelling along with his goods on a vehicle, then he cannot be termed to be a gratuitous passenger. I am in full agreement with the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed.” 14. Mr. Tulsyan has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the matter of Vinod Kumar Kuswaha and another vs. Brij Bihari Gupta and others in MAC No. 35 of 2011 and connected matters, where it is held that the passengers were travelling in the Truck not as owners of goods rather they were passengers and there was no evidence except bald averments made in this regard; therefore, it was held that the Tribunal committed error of law while fastening liability with the Insurance company. 15. In the present case, the deceased and other persons were travelling in the offending vehicle after payment of fare, they were travelling along with Basket of their vegetables, they were indulged in the business of selling vegetables. In cross-examination, Smt. Savitri stated that they were travelling after payment of fare. The Insurance company could not rebut the 8 evidence adduced by the said witness. Likewise, Umesh/ AW/1 also deposed in same manner. The Insurance company could not prove that the deceased were gratuitous passenger and no fare was received by the driver and owner of the vehicle, and thus, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the judgment cited by Mr. Tulsyan. 16. With regard to next contention made by Mr. Tulsyan that the major sons of the deceased persons were not dependant on the income of the deceased. The claimants filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, wherein they pleaded that they were dependant on the income of the deceased. The Insurance company failed to rebut the pleading or the evidence led by the claimants in this regard; therefore, the contention made by Mr. Tulsyan cannot be accepted. 17. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law discussed above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the awards passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant