1 2026:CGHC:19204 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 90 of 2023 1 - Loknath Sahu @ Loku S/o Tijauram Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Nipania, Tahsil And Thana - Bhathapara Gramin District - Balodabazar Bhathapara (Chhattisgarh). (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.04/h.T./5428). 2 - Devcharan Sahu S/o Khorbahara Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village - Bhothidih, Tahsil And Thana - Bhathapara Gramin District - Balodabazar Bhathapara (Chhattisgarh). (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.04/h.T./5428). ... Appellants versus 1 - Prem Bai Dhruv W/o Late Lalji Dhruv Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Bhothidih, Tahsil And Thana - Bhathapara Gramin District - Balodabazar Bhathapara (Chhattisgarh). 2 - Minor Kumari Saraswati Dhruv D/o Late Lalji Dhruv Aged About 12 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Prem Bai Dhruv, R/o Village - Bhothidih, Tahsil And Thana - Bhathapara Gramin District - Balodabazar Bhathapara (Chhattisgarh). 2 3 - Revati Bai Dhruv W/o Late Ishwar Dhruv Aged About 70 Years R/o Village - Bhothidih, Tahsil And Thana - Bhathapara Gramin District - Balodabazar Bhathapara (Chhattisgarh). 4 - Chola M.S. General Insurance Company Through Branch Manager, Chola M.S. General Insurance Company, 2nd Floor, Simran Tower, Near- L.I.C. Building Pandri Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh). (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.04/h.T./5428). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Sanskriti Pawar on behalf of Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No. 1-3 Respondent No. 4 : : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya along with Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate Mr. Prasoon Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 25/04/2026 1. Assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 28.11.2022 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)in Claim Case No. 02/2019, this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) has been filed. 3 2. A claim application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was filed by the respondent no. 1 to 3 as claimants seeking compensation of Rs. 26,04,000/- on account of the death of deceased Santram Dhruw in a motor accident that occurred on 13.06.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle tractor bearing Registration No. CG-04-HT-5428, driven by appellant No. 1 and owned by appellant no. 2 and insured with respondent No. 4/Insurance company. 3. As per pleadings, the deceased was seated on the Tractor and was going to perform his duties. At that time the appellant no. 1 drove it rashly and negligently as a result he fell down from the tractor resulting into severe injuries and ultimately died. An offence under crime no. 159/18 was registered against the appellant no. 1 and after due investigation charge sheet was filed in the competent court. 4. As per further pleadings, deceased was a labour earning Rs. 9000/- per month. The claim application was resisted by the appellants (driver and owner) and respondent no. 4/Insurance company including the insurance company taking a plea that there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy as deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle. Thus, the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 5. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the claimants barring issue no. 3 with regard to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy which 4 was decided in favour of respondent no. 4/insurance company by the impugned award. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that exoneration of insurance company is bad in law. The insurance company could not prove its breach on part of appellants thus, the finding on issue no. 3 may be set-aside. Apart from this, she also submits that the compensation awarded may be reduced suitably. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 3 and counsel for respondent no. 4 supports the award. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The first contention of the counsel for the appellant was that insurance company has wrongly been exonerated. As per pleadings of the claim application, deceased was seated on the tractor. He fell down from the tractor as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by appellant no. 1. In order to prove its breach, the insurance company has examined its witness (AW- 2) Ajay Kumar Dhruw who has particularly deposed that there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and deceased was a gratuitous passenger. After due assessment of the evidence available on record, Tribunal found that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. Thus, the finding recorded by the tribunal is based on the proper appreciation of evidence. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan (2007) 7 SCC 56 has observed that, 5 “a gratuitous passenger carried in a goods vehicle is not covered under the Act but the Act has extended the statutory cover to the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle, and not to gratuitous passengers. A direction however was given by the Apex Court to ‘pay and recover’ though it held that, gratuitous passenger was not covered under the policy. Even thought he Insurance Company was found to be not liable, by exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direction was given to satisfy the award made by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant. Therefore, this decision indicates that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which is available only to the apex Court can be exercised to direct pay and recovery, even when it finds that the liability of the Insurance Company is absent. In spite of that, a direction can be issued by the apex Court to the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and later recover the said amount from the owner.” 11. In light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of Brij Mohan (supra), the contention of the counsel for the appellant is rejected. 12. The second contention raised by counsel for the appellant pertains to the income of the deceased. Ms. Sanskriti Pawar contends that the learned Tribunal has erroneously assessed the income of the deceased on the higher side. The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- and, 6 after adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting ½ towards personal expenses, and applying the multiplier of 18, awarded Rs. 9,07,200/- towards loss of dependency. In addition, a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was awarded towards mental agony, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 9,77,200/-. The date of accident was 13.06.2018. The income assessed by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or exaggerated and does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the second contention is also rejected. 13. Consequently, the appeal having no merit and is hereby fails and dismissed. 14. The interim order in favour of the appellants is hereby discharged. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Madhurima