1 CGHC010369122019 2026:CGHC:27647 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1955 of 2019 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surguja Ambikapur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Devmunia Wd/o Late Devnath Aged About 32 Years Caste - Rajwar, Occupation- Housewife, R/o Village Ratanpur, Tahsil Surajpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Now District Surajpur). 2 - Laxman Prasad S/o Late Devnath Aged About 20 Years Caste - Rajwar, Occupation- Student, R/o Village Ratanpur, Tahsil Surajpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Now District Surajpur). 3 - Mahendra Kumar S/o Late Devnath Aged About 17 Years Minor Represented Through Vali Mother Devmunia, Caste - Rajwar, Occupation- Student, R/o Village Ratanpur, Tahsil Surajpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Now District Surajpur). 2 4 - Kumari Meena D/o Late Devnath Aged About 13 Years Minor Represented Through Vali Mother Devmunia, Caste - Rajwar, Occupation- Student, R/o Village Ratanpur, Tahsil Surajpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Now District Surajpur). 5 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Near Ambedkar Square, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 6 - Bhuneshwar Prasad Rajwade S/o Shri Tilbikram Ram Aged About 32 Years Caste - Rajwar, Occupation - Driver, R/o Village Harra Tikara, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Principal/ Director Granodaya Deaf And Dumb School, Bishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Shashank Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 06.07.2026 3 1. The State of Chhattisgarh/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 24.04.2018 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claims Case No.123/2007, by which the liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/State and driver. 2. Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned P.L. for the State/appellant would submit that the learned Tribunal was absolutely justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant who had requisitioned the vehicle on the registered person. Therefore, the appellant/State is not liable to pay compensation. 3. Mr. Shashank Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company/respondent No.5 would submit that in the accident two persons had died, and the driver’s case was subject matter of MAC No.1970/2019 [State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Vanaspati Devi & Ors.], which has 4 already been dismissed by this Court holding the State is liable to pay compensation. 4. In this case, the learned Claims Tribunal, in para 42, has recorded the finding that the vehicle was requisitioned by the Collector, Surguja on 06.04.2004, and it was being driven by driver Bhuneshwar – Defendant No.2, under the instruction of Collector, Surguja, and observed in paras 42 and 43 as under :- “¼43½ अनावेदक छ०ग० शासना द्वारा कलेक्टरा सरागजा अम्बिकपुरा क ओरा स दना दवे प्रकराणों में ऐस कई तथ्य प्रस्तत नाहीं( किकय गय हीं* किक, किदना+क 17.04.2004 क वेहींना अधि-ग्रहींणों आदशा क किवेपुरा0त वेहींना स्वेमें0 क द्वा ारा वेहींना क आमेंद ना दकरा अपुना किनायजाना में वेहींना क उपुयग किकय जा जा राहीं था। इसधिलेए दस्तवेजा0 सक्ष्य क उपुलेब्-त में उक्त आक्षेकिपुत वेहींना स0.जा0.15 ए 1590 किदना+क 17.04.2004 क कलेक्टरा सरागजा क अधि-ग्रहींणों आदशा किदना+क 06.04.2004 क अनासरा वेहींना स्वेमें0 क कब्जा / किनायजाना में नाहीं(, म्बि;क अनावेदक छ०ग० शासना द्वारा कलेक्टरा सरागजा अम्बिकपुरा क किनायजाना में अनावेदक भुनाश्वेरा क द्वारा चालेना किकय जाना प्रमेंकिणोंत हीं?। इसधिलेए दर्घAटना किदना+क क अनावेदक भुनाश्वेरा क द्वारा आक्षेकिपुत वेहींना कमें+क-स0.जा0. 15 ए 5 1590 क चालेना करा दर्घAटना करिरात कराना एवे+ उक्त दर्घAटना में आवेदकगणों क करिरात क्षेकितपुCकितA अदयग0 हींत में० द०द० कमें+क-123/2007 क अनावेदक कमें+क-04 एवे+ में० द०द0 कमें+क-124/2007 में अनावेदक क्रमें+क- 05 क रूपु में समेंकिहींत शासना द्वारा कलेक्टरा सरागजा अम्बिकपुरा, उत्तरादय0 हीं?। (43) इस प्रकरा अनावेदक भुनाश्वेरा आक्षेकिपुत वेहींना क चालेक था, उसक द्वारा लेपुरावेहीं0पुCवेAक वेहींना चालेना करा दर्घAटना करिरात क गय0। इसधिलेए वेहीं दर्घAटना में करिरात क्षेकितपुCकितA क धिलेए प्रत्यक्षे रूपु स उत्तरादय0 हीं?। अनावेदक शासना द्वारा कलेक्टरा सरागजा अम्बिकपुरा धिजासक किनायजाना में अनावेदक भुनाश्वेरा क द्वारा वेहींना चालेना करा दना दवे प्रकराणों क आवेदकगणों क क्षेकित करिरात क गय0 हीं?। इसधिलेए अनावेदक शासना द्वारा कलेक्टरा सरागजा अम्बिकपुरा भु0 उक्त क्षेकितपुCकितA राकिशा अदयग0 हींत दकियत्वे-0ना हीं?। आवेदकगणों में०द०द०कमें+क- 123/2007 में अनावेदक कमें+क-02 भुनाश्वेरा एवे+ अनावेदक क्रमें+क-04 शासना द्वारा कलेक्टरा सरागजा अम्बिकपुरा स तथा में०द०द०कमें+क-124/2007 में आवेदकगणों अनावेदक क्रमें+क-01 भुनाश्वेरा एवे+ अनावेदक कक्रमें+क-05 शासना द्वारा कलेक्टरा सरागजा अम्बिकपुरा स क्षेकितपुCकितA राकिशा पुHथाक-पुHथाक य स+यक्त रूपु स प्रप्त कराना क अधि-करा0 हीं*।" 6 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matte of District Magistrate and District Election Officer and Collector, Gwalior, M.P. vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others 1 has held that when the vehicle is requisitioned by the State under statutory authority, possession and control of the vehicle stand transferred from the owner to the State. Liability to pay compensation thus lies with requisitioning authority and not with the insurer or the registered owner and observed in para 9 as under :-. “9. When a public authority requisitions a privately owned vehicle for public purposes, the nature of possession and control changes entirely. The owner is divested of custody and decision-making power, and the vehicle is placed at the disposal of the State for governmental functions. During this period, the owner neither directs its use nor derives any benefit from it. It only stands to reason that in such circumstances, if an untoward incident occurs, responsibility would properly to rest with the requisitioning authority and not with the insurer engaged by the owner for ordinary, private or commercial use, as the case may be. Once requisitioned, the vehicle is operated under official directions. The authority determines the manner of deployment, the purpose for which it is used, and the conditions under which it is operated. The owner has no say in these matters. 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 455 7 Where control is assumed by the State, the legal consequences arising from that control cannot, in fairness, be shifted back to a private insurer whose contractual engagement was premised on a wholly different footing. It is equally important to recognize that a requisition is not a voluntary arrangement, instead it is a command issued under statutory authority, as stated by the judgments referred to supra. The owner does not consent to part with possession; he is compelled to do so. The insurance policy obtained by him envisions and accounts for the vehicle's regular and lawful use in the ordinary course. Compelled deployment for public functions cannot reasonably be characterised as "regular use" within the 'usual' contemplation. To fasten liability upon the insurer in these circumstances would be to extend the contract beyond the risk that was agreed to be covered. Requiring the insurer to answer for consequences arising from a use neither authorised nor controlled by the insured would be unfair. The insurer assesses and underwrites risk based on the insured's ordinary operations. When the State steps in, assumes control, and deploys the vehicle for its own purposes, it assumes with that control the corresponding responsibility. Further, when statutory power is exercised to requisition private property in the public interest, that power carries with it an obligation to answer for the consequences flowing from such compelled use. To hold otherwise would impose upon private parties and their insurers the burden of risks 8 generated exclusively by governmental action.” 6. In light of aforesaid principle laid down by Their Lordships’ in the Supreme Court in the matter of District Magistrate (supra), and considering the fact that other case arising out of case of driver/defendant No.2 has already been dismissed by this Court which was subject matter in MAC No.1970/2019, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. 7. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.07.07 17:32:46 +0530