1 2025:CGHC:932 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 366 of 2020 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Claim Manager, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, G.E. Road Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh..............(Non Applicant No. 3), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Dhannulal Yadav S/o Firangi Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Mandir Para, Village Kharra, P.O. Kachandur, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh..................Claimant, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2. Rekha Yadav, W/o Dhannulal Yadav, Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Mandir Para, Village Kharra, P.O. Kachandur, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh..................Claimant, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Raju Kumhar, S/o Maniram Kumhar, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Jamgaon (R), Thana Ranitarai, District Durg Chhattisgarh...............Driver, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Sandeep Chakradhari, S/o Kalluram Chakradhari, Aged About 25 Years R/o House No. 148, Ward No. 1, Thakur Nihal Singh Ward, Village Baghmara, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh...............Owner, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Uttam Chand, Advocate on behalf of Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 07/01/2025 1. The appellant has challenged the award dated 28.11.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional Tribunal to the 1st Additional Motor Accidents 2 Claims Tribunal, District-Durg in Claim Case No. 482/18 whereby the claim case filed by respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants was partly allowed and compensation of Rs. 3,59,000/- was awarded and liability was fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. As per the facts described in the claim case, one Gajendra was travelling on the tractor along with the driver, namely, Raju on 17.07.2018. At about 12:30 p.m., the tractor turned turtle and Gajendra died on the spot. A claim case was filed inter-alia on the ground that the age of the deceased was 21 years and he was working as a labourer. It is also pleaded that he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and the claimants claimed Rs. 15,82,000/- as compensation. The Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the contents of the application. They pleaded that at the time of the accident, the deceased was a gratuitous passenger as there was no sitting capacity other than the driver; therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that as there was no sitting capacity in the tractor and according to the RC Book, there is sitting capacity of the driver alone, therefore, the Insurance Company was wrongly fastened with the liability. He further submits that there was some mistake in the policy issued in favor of the vehicle and the same cannot be made ground to fasten the liability. He prays to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants submits that in the insurance policy, 3 the sitting capacity of the vehicle is shown to be (1+1), thus, the Insurance Company covered the liability of the driver and one passenger. He further submits that the Tribunal has considered this aspect and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Exhibit D/2 i.e. the insurance policy would reveal that the liability of the driver and one passenger is covered and the sitting capacity as shown in the policy is 1+1. Though a stand has been taken by the Insurance Company that it was on account of some mistake but as a contract was entered into between the parties and the same was accepted by the owner of the vehicle, therefore the Insurance Company cannot deviate. Further, the Insurance Company never took any step to alter or modify the policy, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly passed the award. 7. Consequently, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya