1 2026:CGHC:5447 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 254 of 2020  Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Division Office, Bajrang Market, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Gahru Singh Baiga S/o Mari Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Dullapur, Police Station Taregaon (Jungle), Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Gahru Baiga Aged About 17 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Father Gahru Singh S/o Mari Singh, R/o Village Dullapur, Police Station Taregaon (Jungle), Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3. Dhaneshwar Kumar S/o Gahru Baiga Aged About 14 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Father Gahru Singh S/o Mari Singh, R/o Village Dullapur, Police Station Taregaon (Jungle), Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4. Triveni @ Lavlesh Yadav S/o Banshpatti Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chandwahi, Police Station Bahri, District Sidhi (M.P.), Presently Residing In The House Of Habibuddin, Podi, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5. Habibuddin Khan S/o Nabibuddin Khan Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Podi, Outpost Podi, Police Station Bodla, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.02 16:18:21 +0530 2 For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Abhipreet Bajpai, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 31.1.2026 1) The appellant–Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 83/2017 dated 26.7.2019, by which liability to pay a total compensation of Rs. 8,76,400/- has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 22.3.2017, Gahru Singh Baiga and Parwati Bai were going from Village Magarwada to Village Dullapur on motorcycle. At about 7:30 pm, driver of offending vehicle – Truck bearing registration No. CG-09-F-6786 with intention to commit murder, dashed the motorcycle. In the collision, Parwati Bai sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. FIR was registered against the driver of Truck for commission of offence punishable u/s 304 of IPC. Claimants, who are the widower and children of deceased moved claim application and pleaded that at the time of accident, age of deceased was 35 years and she was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month working in stone crushing plant. Driver and owner of Truck remained ex-parte 3 before learned Tribunal whereas Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that deceased was murdered by the driver of offending vehicle, therefore claimants are not entitled to receive any compensation. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that it is categorically stated in FIR that on the fateful date, driver of Truck dashed the motorcycle with intention to commit murder and same story was narrated in merg intimation. She further submits that a criminal case was registered against driver of Truck, therefore claimants are not entitled to receive compensation. In this regard, she has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Rahi Solanki and Others passed in MAC No. 182 of 2013. She prays to set aside the award. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants would oppose. He submits that deceased lost her life in road accident and learned Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding in this regard and grounds raised by Insurance Company herein-above were not raised before learned Tribunal. He further submits that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation which does not warrant any interference. 4 5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the documents placed on record. 6) Admittedly, FIR (Ex. P/1) was lodged by Gahru Singh Baiga on 22.3.2017 wherein it is categorically stated that driver of truck dashed the motorcycle with dominant intention to kill them and in the collision Parwati Bai died. FIR was registered for commission of offense punishable u/s 304 of IPC. Crime Details Form (Ex. P/2) would show that motorcycle was in left side of road and truck dashed it from rear. In merg intimation (Ex. P/3), Gahru Singh Baiga has narrated the same story. Subsequently, the offending truck was seized by police on 3.8.2017. 7) Gahru Singh Baiga (AW/1) deposed before Tribunal that driver of truck while driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that a written complaint was made wherein an allegation was made against driver of offending truck that he dashed the motorcycle with dominant intention to kill its riders which resulted in death of Parwati Bai who was the pillion rider. 8) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rita Devi Versus New India Assurance Company Limited and Another1 held that “ ‘dominant intention’ was to kill the deceased and the loss of life is not incidental to any other felonious act”. Hon’ble Division Bench 1. 2000 ACJ 801 SC 5 in the matter of Smt. Rahi Solanki (supra) held that “it is quite possible that in a given case, ‘murder’ can be an ‘accident’. If only it amounts to an ‘accident’, can it lead to a claim petition, to be filed by the claimants seeking compensation”. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein-below :- 17. Coming back to the case in hand, it is to be considered whether the loss of life of the deceased was because of the 'dominant intention' of the Driver/Accused to cause death. Admittedly, there was an altercation on the relevant date at about 9:15 pm between the Respondent-Driver and the deceased by name Ashok Singh who was standing with his friend (Ram Sewak Jaiswal, deceased in the connected case). It was on getting provoked that the Respondent Driver took the Truck and crushed both the persons to death, using the vehicle. Thus, this is a case where the vehicle was taken used as a tool/weapon to kill the persons concerned in furtherance to the sole intention. No other instance is involved to consider whether it was incidental to some other felonious act as observed by the Apex Court in Rita Devi (supra). The 'dominant intention' on the part of the Respondent-Driver is clearly discernible and the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the crime registered against the Driver- Respondent; ultimately leading to conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, who is undergoing life imprisonment. Since the 'dominant intention' is substantiated as above, it is a case of "murder simplicitor" and not an incidental murder, as explained by the Apex Court in Rita Devi (supra). As it stands so, it is not a case coming within the purview of the insurance policy issued by the Appellant to meet the statutory requirements under Section 147 of the MV Act towards the third party and hence, no liability can be mulcted on the Appellant-Insurer where the Tribunal has gone wrong. 6 9) Taking into consideration the facts of present case, : contents of FIR and merg intimation lodged by claimant himself and story narrated by him in the claim petition, in my opinion, as present is a case of ‘accidental murder’, claim petition was not maintainable at all therefore learned Tribunal committed error of law while passing the award in favor of claimants.. 10) In view of the discussion made herein-above, judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal is hereby set aside and claim petition is dismissed being not maintainable. Accordingly, instant appeal stands allowed. 11) All pending application(s) stand disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a