1 / 11 2025:CGHC:33000 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 499 of 2019 Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Legal Manager, Office No. 403 4th Floor, DB, City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9 Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer). --- Appellant versus 1 - Ramjeet Marabi S/o Late Rameshwar, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Koti, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh Present Address - Village Bhediya, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant ) 2 - Ramlakhan Singh S/o Siroman Singh, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Koti, Post Mahewa, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh. (Driver ). 3 - Mahboob Ahmad S/o Abdul Rajak, R/o Village And Post Pandri ( Kenwari) Tahsil Wadrafnagar District Balrampur Chhattisgarh. (Owner). --- Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Krishna Kant Prajapati on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 15/07/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 07.12.2018, passed in Claim Case No.78 of 2018, whereby the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.31 10:18:57 +0530 2 / 11 Tribunal’) has awarded compensation of Rs.7,10,400/- to the claimants in death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application was filed by the applicant/claimant claiming compensation of Rs.10,04,500/- as against the death of Indrawati, who died in the road accident. It was pleaded that on 23.05.2018, Indravati went to the house of Ramlakhan to do domestic work. After completing the work, when she was returning home at about 9.45 am walking at that time Non-applicant No.1, driving tractor bearing No. U.P. 64 R 6934, offered Indravati a ride on the tractor as he was also proceeding towards the house of Indravati. When they reached near Patiapara, due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor it over turned. As a result of the said accident, Indravati fell from the tractor, sustained serious bodily injuries, and died on the spot. It was pleaded that the deceased was the only daughter of the claimant and was working as a domestic worker in various houses and was earning Rs. 4,500 per month. 3. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 filed their reply denying the averments made in the claim application. It was pleaded that claim application was filed on the false and fabricated grounds exaggerating the amount of compensation. The vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3 and at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was holding valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. It was pleaded that non- applicant was driving the offending vehicle carefully and suddenly a girl skitched trolley of tractor and later due to bursting of the tyre of the tractor, steering failed and tractor over turned, due to which the girl who was skitching on the rear trolley suffered injury. 3 / 11 4. Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply denying the averments made in the application. It was pleaded that on the date of the accident, the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized passenger. Offending vehicle was insured only for agricultural and horticultural use, with coverage limited to the driver and no premium was paid for additional passengers, as such, the risk of other person was not covered. Non-applicant No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions without any fitness certificate. As there was breach of conditions of insurance policy, non-applicant No.3 is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,10,400/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.1 and 3 jointly and severally. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in passing the impugned award and fastening the liability upon appellant/Insurance Company, ignoring the fact that deceased was travelling on the offending vehicle, which is a goods carrying vehicle. It is contended that the offending vehicle was insured only for agricultural and horticultural use, with coverage limited to the driver and no premium was paid for additional passengers, as such, risk of other person was not covered. It is further contended that claimants have pleaded in the application that the deceased was offered lift by the non-applicant No.1/Driver and the deceased was not 4 / 11 a labour engaged in the offending vehicle. It is contended that at the time of accident, deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger, therefore, her risk was not covered under the contractual liability. He prays that the appellant/Insurance Company be exonerated from indemnifying the insured. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimants opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and supports the impugned award. He submits that learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of entire documentary and oral evidence brought on record has passed the impugned award, which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case. 9. The claimants in the claim application have specifically pleaded that on the date of accident, when deceased was proceeding towards her home after completing her household work, she was offered by non- applicant No.1 to ride on the offending vehicle as he was also proceeding towards the house of deceased and when they reached near Patiapara, non-applicant No.1 drove the offending vehicle at a high speed, in rash and negligent manner, due to which the tractor over turned. As a result of the said accident, Indravati fell from the tractor, sustained serious bodily injuries, and died on the spot. 10. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 have attempted to show in their evidence that the accident did not occur due to negligence on the part of the non-applicant No.1. Non-applicant No.1 was unaware of the 5 / 11 deceased, Indravati skitching the tractor. They claimed that Indravati suffered injuries of her own negligence when the trolley overturned, leading to her death. 11. However, eyewitness Ajay Kumar (A.W.2) clearly stated that deceased- Indravati ran and sat on the tractor, and non-applicant No.1 while driving the tractor rashly and at high speed, over turned the tractor. Deceased suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. In cross- examination, he denied the suggestion of witnessing accident. 12. Copy of registration certificate of the offending vehicle is placed on record as (Ex.D-1C) and perusal of the same would show that class of vehicle is mentioned as Tractor (Agriculture) and there is no sitting capacity on the tractor except for the driver. Copy of insurance policy is filed as Ex.D-3. Perusal of the policy would show that it was insured only for agricultural and forestry purposes. 13. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company has examined Himanshu, Law Officer, as NAW.-3, who in his evidence stated that the tractor bearing No. U.P. 64 R 6934 was insured under a Commercial Vehicle Package Policy in the name of Shri Mehboob Ahmed for the period 13.10.2017 to 12.10.2018, limited to agricultural and forestry use. The policy included coverage only for the driver’s personal accident risk. He further stated that at the time of the accident, the deceased was unauthorizedly traveling on the tractor engine. As no premium was paid for any passenger other than the driver, the insurance company is not liable for compensation. He further stated that at the time of accident the vehicle was used in breach of conditions of insurance policy. 6 / 11 14. From the evidence discussed above, it is clearly established that on the date of the accident, the deceased, Indravati, was traveling on the offending tractor as a gratuitous passenger. Non-applicant No.2 has placed on record a copy of the registration certificate of the tractor, which reflects that the seating capacity of the vehicle is limited to one person only i.e. the driver. Additionally, a cover note and insurance policy were filed to demonstrate the nature and extent of insurance coverage, including the specific heads under which the premium was paid. In such circumstances, it becomes the duty of the Tribunal to carefully examine whether the insurance policy covered any risk associated with carrying passengers on the tractor, particularly persons other than the owner-driver or a paid driver. In absence of any premium paid towards coverage of passengers or third-party risks involving unauthorized occupants, it must be determined whether the insurance company can be held liable. 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Brij Mohan and others reported in (2007) 7 SCC 56 has considered the issue with regard to persons traveling on tractor trolley and held in para 10 and 12 thus: - “10. Furthermore, the respondent was not the owner of the tractor. He was also not the driver thereof. He was merely a passenger travelling on the trolley attached to the tractor. His claim petition, therefore, could not have been allowed in view of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2003) 2 SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493] wherein the earlier decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh [(2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130] was overruled. 7 / 11 In Asha Rani [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2003) 2 SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493] it was, inter alia, held : (SCC p. 235, paras 25-27) “25. Section 147 of the 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of ‘public service vehicle’. Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It does not speak of any passenger in a ‘goods carriage’. 26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-à-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words ‘any person’ must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. ‘a third party’. Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor. 27. Furthermore, sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, whereas sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.” 8 / 11 (See also National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma [(2005) 12 SCC 243] and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [(2006) 4 SCC 404 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 344] .) 12. Interpretation of the contracts of insurance in terms of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act came up for consideration recently before a Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut [(2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142 : (2007) 4 Scale 36] wherein it was held : (SCC p. 714, paras 23-24) “23[24]. As noted above, there is no contractual relation between the third party and the insurer. Because of the statutory intervention in terms of Section 149, the same becomes operative in essence and Section 149 provides complete insulation. 24[25]. In the background of the statutory provisions, one thing is crystal clear i.e. the statute is beneficial one qua the third party. But that benefit cannot be extended to the owner of the offending vehicle. The logic of fake licence has to be considered differently in respect of the third party and in respect of own damage claims.” It was further observed : (SCC pp. 718-19, paras 33- 35) “33[36]. It is also well settled that to arrive at the intention of the legislation depending on the objects for which the enactment is made, the court can resort to historical, contextual and purposive interpretation leaving textual interpretation aside. 9 / 11 34[37]. Francis Bennion in his book Statutory Interpretation described ‘purposive interpretation’ as under: ‘A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by— (a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose, or (b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose.’ 35[38]. More often than not, literal interpretation of a statute or a provision of a statute results in absurdity. Therefore, while interpreting statutory provisions, the courts should keep in mind the objectives or purpose for which statute has been enacted. Justice Frankfurter of US Supreme Court in an article titled as ‘Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes’ (47 Columbia Law Review 527), observed that, ‘legislation has an aim, it seeks to obviate some mischief, to supply an adequacy, to effect a change of policy, to formulate a plan of Government. That aim, that policy is not drawn, like nitrogen, out of the air; it is evidenced in the language of the statutes, as read in the light of other external manifestations of purpose.’ ” (See also Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal [(2007) 5 SCC 428 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 527 : (2007) 5 Scale 269] .) 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shivaraj v. Rajendra and Anr. reported in (2018) 10 SCC 432 has held thus: 10 / 11 “10. The High Court, however, found in favour of Respondent 2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person, namely, the driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (Respondent 2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor. That conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case.” 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the deceased was traveling on the offending vehicle and was not covered under the insurance policy purchased by the owner. The insurance policy did not provide coverage for any unauthorized passengers, and no premium was paid for such risk and in light of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that breach of policy condition was not proved and hence, appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The liability to satisfy the award shall now rest solely with Non-applicant No.2, owner of the offending vehicle. 18. However, considering the fact that the claimants are poor person and appellant/Insurance Company though issued the insurance policy has been exonerated from its liability on the ground of breach of conditions of insurance policy and further taking note of 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 11 / 11 case of Shivraj Vs. Rajendra & Another, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 432, Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, the Insurance Company/appellant is directed to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from owner of the vehicle. It is made clear that the Insurance Company can recover the amount of compensation so paid from owner of offending vehicle as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan, (2004) 13 SCC 224 in same execution proceeding. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram