1 2026:CGHC:13751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2098 of 2025 Arpit Associate Through Proprietor, Arpit Vinayak, S/o Ajay Kumar Vinayak, aged about - 30 years, Plot No. 31/6, Nehru Nagar East, Bhilai Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.) (Father's Name and age not Mentioned In The Covering Memo Of The Cause Title) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle No. CG/07/BU/2382) (Non-Applicant No. 02) ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Purnima W/o Late Manoj aged about 31 years R/o. House No. 106, Ward No. 54, Chacha Chowk, Ruabandha Basti Bhilai Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Wife Of Deceased Manoj Kumar) (Claimant No. 01) 2. Arman Sonwani, S/o. Late Manoj aged about 13 years Since Minor Through Guardian (Mother) Smt. Purnima, W/o. Late Manoj aged About, 31 years, R/o. House No. 106, Ward No. 54, Chacha Chowk, Ruabandha Basti Bhilai Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Son Of Deceased Manoj Kumar) (Claimant No. 02) 3. Gajadhar Tandon S/o. Guhan Tandon, aged about 40 years R/o. Asoga Police Station Ranitarai Teshil Patan District Durg (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle No. CG/07/BU/2382) (Non-Applicant No. 01) 4. The National Insurance Company, Ltd. Divisional Office Akashganga, Supela, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle No. Cg/07/BU/2382) (Non- Applicant No. 03) ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate For Respondents 1 and 2 : Shri Pravesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Shri Raj Awasthy, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : None (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) 2 Order on Board dated 23.03.2026 Heard on IA No. 01/2025 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. This appeal arises out of the award dated 06.02.2025 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the "Tribunal") Durg, District Durg in Claim Case No. 169/2023 awarding a compensation of Rs. 19,02,000/- in favour of the respondents/claimants as against Rs. 32,56,800 for the death of Manoj Kumar in an accident which took place on 25.11.2022. The offending vehicle was owned by the appellant, driven by respondent No.3 and insured with respondent No.4. 4. It is revealed from the record that on the fateful day when the deceased was working near the Durga Pandal in Sector- 10, the tractor bearing registration No. CG-07-BU-2382 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) driven by its driver rashly and negligently got overturned as a result of which the deceased suffered serious injuries, was rushed to the District Hospital, Durg where he was declared dead. Criminal case under Section 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. Claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) was filed by the respondents/claimants. Learned Tribunal after framing issues decided the same in favour of the claimants. Since the driver of the offending vehicle has been found to have violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, learned Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from its liability. However, as the offending vehicle was undisputedly insured with it, learned Tribunal directed the respondent/Insurance Company 3 to first satisfy the award and then to recover from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. This is how this appeal has been filed by the appellant who happens to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the factum of violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy has not been proved by the Insurance Company and that there is nothing on record that the appellant deliberately breached the same. He submits that as the deceased was not sitting in the offending vehicle and thus was not a gratuitous passenger. He submits that the amount of compensation is quite exaggerated. It is thus pleaded that the compensation be reduced and the insurance company be held liable to satisfy the award. 7. Counsel for the respondents/claimants opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is well justified. Counsel for the Insurer however submits that admittedly the deceased was sitting in the tractor in spite of there being no sitting capacity, and as such he was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle and being so the insurance company has rightly been exonerated. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Devireddy Konda Reddy reported in 2003 (2) SCC 339 and in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Vedwati & Ors reported in 2007 (9) SCC 486. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. As regards the first contention made by counsel for the appellant that the deceased was not sitting in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, having seen the record in its entirety indicating the deceased 4 sitting as a gratuitous passenger, it is hereby turned down. More importantly, the witnesses examined by the claimants have categorically stated that the deceased was sitting on the engine of the offending vehicle and on account of rash and negligent driving the deceased fell down and suffered injuries. As regards the other submission that the insurance company has not proved the breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, in view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is also liable to be and is hereby rejected. The fact that the deceased was sitting in the offending vehicle has been proved by the document of Ex. D-1. Contention of the counsel for the appellant that the award amount is exaggerated one, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 25 years at the relevant time, monthly income i.e. Rs. 10,000/- and then consideration of 40% towards future prospects, then looking to the fact that the claimants are the young widow and the minor son of the deceased, the personal and living expenses on the deceased himself to be 1/3rd of his total earning, the same cannot be termed as exaggerated one, and being that the said contention is also brushed aside. 10. Having thus heard counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in exonerating the insurance company from satisfying the award and also in calculating the quantum of compensation. Being all this, the appeal is without any substance and is hereby dismissed as such with the affirmation of the award impugned. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:05:54 +0530