1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1051 of 2018 Reserved On 18.11.2025 Delivered On 11/12/2025 1 - Director S. B. J. Project Private Limited Amit Bansal, Son Of Suresh Kumar Bansal, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Friends Colony, Dhimrapur, Kotra Road By - Pass Road, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Bina Kaak W/o Late Lalit @ Laalu Kaak, Aged About 35 Years R/o Rambhata, Thana City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Dahrothi Kaak, W/o Anand Kaak, Aged About 60 Years R/o Rambhata, Thana City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Rahul Kaak S/o Late Lalit @ Laalu Kaak, Aged About 16 Years Through Respondent No. 1 Their Mother, R/o Rambhata, Thana City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Minor Arvind Kaak S/o Late Lalit @Laalu Kaak, Aged About 12 Years Through Respondent No. 1 Their Mother, R/o Rambhata, Thana City ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Kotwali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Minor Kumari Shobha Kaak D/o Late Lalit @ Laalu Kaak, Aged About 5 Years Through Respondent No. 1 Their Mother, R/o Rambhata, Thana City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Pramod Kumar Rai, S/o Parmeshwar Rai, Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Near Rewari Mathia Talab, Thana Kopa, District Chhapra (Bihar), Presently Residing At - Behind Patrpali, Babzi Market, Near House Of Munna Patel, Thana Kotra Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Branch Manager, Bharati Axa General Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Shrinagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, being aggrieved by the award dated 31.03.2018 (annexed herewith as Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District Raigarh, in M.A.C. Case No. 23/2016. 2. Facts of the case :- On 23.10.2015, the deceased Lalit @ Laalu Kaak, while travelling with others for immersion of Goddess Durga 3 from Rambhata to Kelo Dam initially in a tractor, later took a lift at Urdana Barrier and sat in the offending vehicle; however, near Urdana crossing, on account of the broken condition of the road, speed breakers, and the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 6, he fell from the vehicle, came under its wheels, sustained grievous injuries, and after being shifted to the District Hospital, Raigarh, succumbed to the same on 25.10.2015. The claimants, being his legal heirs, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, asserting that the deceased, aged about 40 years and employed as a tailor earning approximately Rs. 7,000/- per month, was contributing to the family, and sought compensation of Rs. 26,00,000/- from the owner, driver, and insurer of the vehicle. Upon issuance of notice, Respondent No. 7–the insurer–denied liability on the grounds of breach of policy conditions, including carrying a gratuitous passenger, absence of permit and valid tax, and the driver’s alleged lack of a valid licence, whereas the appellant-owner filed his written statement disputing adverse allegations and contending that as the vehicle was insured with Respondent No. 7, the insurer alone was liable, placing the burden on the insurer to prove any breach; Respondent No. 6, the driver, remained ex parte. Issues were framed, and the claimant examined herself as PW-1 along with an alleged eye-witness, Dheeraj Kumar Sahu (PW-2), while the appellant examined Sujeet Kumar Singh (DW-1), a dozer operator who was in the truck at the time, and Dev Das Mahant (DW-2), 4 the police official who recorded the merg statement, though the insurer led no evidence. By the impugned award dated 31.03.2018, the Tribunal held that the death occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 6, and though the vehicle was duly insured and the driver possessed a valid licence, it concluded that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in violation of policy terms, and accordingly awarded Rs. 10,82,500/- with 8% interest per annum to be paid initially by the insurer with liberty to recover the same from the appellant and Respondent No. 6 jointly and severally. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a duly incorporated Private Limited Company engaged in the business of sale and purchase of limestone, gitti and other minor minerals, and that the offending truck–trailer bearing registration No. CG-13-D-4475, purchased by the appellant on 06.08.2009 for the said business, possessed valid fitness and was duly insured under a liability-only policy issued by Bharati Axa General Insurance Company for the period 14.01.2015 to 13.01.2016. It is contended that the FIR lodged on 23.10.2015 by one Vijay Chouhan, who was never examined before the Tribunal, alleged that the deceased, Lalit @ Laalu Kaak, took a lift in the vehicle and fell due to rash driving; however, the MLC request (Ex. D-2) clearly records that the deceased, while walking in the Durga immersion procession, singing and dancing with the crowd, 5 collided with the vehicle from the side and came under the rear wheel, which is consistent with the post-mortem report (Ex. D-4) and the police statement of his cousin Billu Kaak (Ex. D-1). It is urged that even the eye-witness CW-2, Dheeraj Kumar Sahu, admitted in cross-examination that 50–60 people were proceeding on foot, the deceased too was walking, and he came under the rear wheel, although the witness subsequently attempted to improve his version by claiming that the deceased had been sitting in the vehicle. The insurer, despite denying the validity of the vehicle’s permit, fitness, and the driver’s licence, led no evidence whatsoever and failed to discharge its heavy burden of proving breach of policy conditions. The Tribunal, however, selectively relied upon the FIR and ignored vital defence evidence, mechanically concluding that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and thereby erroneously fastening liability upon the appellant despite valid insurance and a duly licensed driver. Placing reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajamma & Ors. v. Reliance General Insurance Co., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2084, counsel submits that FIR and charge-sheet cannot be treated as conclusive where their contents stand contradicted by reliable evidence and where preponderance of probabilities supports a different version. In the present case, when the insurer did not prove any breach and the evidence on record, including Ex. D-2, Ex. D-1 and the admissions of CW-2, clearly establish that the deceased was 6 walking on foot and accidentally collided with the truck rather than travelling in it, the Tribunal ought to have held that there was no violation of policy terms; therefore, the impugned award warrants modification to hold the insurer solely liable to satisfy the compensation. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and submits that the learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record, and has, therefore, rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. It is urged that the findings of the Tribunal are well-reasoned, supported by the material on record, and call for no interference in appellate jurisdiction. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal preferred against the award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, in M.A.C. Case No. 23/2016. The facts, as emerging from the record, clearly establish that on 23.10.2015 the deceased Lalit @ Laalu Kaak sustained fatal injuries after falling from the offending vehicle due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 6, 7 and the Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 as well as the documents produced, returned a categorical finding that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, which constituted a breach of the insurance policy. The principal contention of the appellant that the deceased was not travelling in the vehicle but was walking on foot and accidentally collided with the truck is not supported by any consistent, cogent or reliable evidence. The Tribunal has duly noticed that the FIR, the contemporaneous version, specifically mentions that the deceased had taken a lift and was sitting in the trailer when the mishap occurred. The alternate version sought to be projected by the appellant through DW-1 and DW-2 is neither convincing nor sufficient to dislodge the clear factual findings recorded by the Tribunal. The alleged contradictions in the evidence of the eye-witness PW-2 do not materially affect the core version that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle, particularly when such version finds support in the FIR as well as in the overall circumstances brought on record. The appellant’s reliance on Ex. D-2, Ex. D-1, or on selective portions of PW-2’s cross- examination cannot outweigh the concurrent factual findings of the Tribunal, especially when the insurer’s plea of breach of policy conditions remained undisputed in view of the admitted position that gratuitous passengers were not covered under the liability- only policy. The argument advanced by the appellant that the insurer failed to discharge its burden is misconceived, for once the 8 Tribunal recorded the factual finding—based on evidence—that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, the breach of policy automatically stood established. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajamma & Ors. v. Reliance General Insurance Co. does not come to the aid of the appellant, as there is no material on record to create any doubt about the genuineness of the FIR or the correctness of the prosecution version to justify discarding it. 7. This Court is satisfied that the Tribunal has duly appreciated the pleadings, evidence, and legal principles, and the award directing the insurer to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the amount from the owner and driver is in consonance with the settled law governing gratuitous passengers. No perversity, illegality, or infirmity is found in the impugned award warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 23/2016 is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena