1 CGHC010100832019 2026:CGHC:35671 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 738 of 2019 1 - Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Ltd. 509, 512 5th Floor D.B. City Corporate Park, Block No. 09 Rajabandha Maidan Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Magna General Insurance Company Ltd. Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh...............(Insurer) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Kanti Bai W/o Late Lala Ram Aged About 20 Years R/o Gram Jagipur, Thana- Kota, Bilaspur, Chhattisgah., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhagyashri D/o Late Lala Ram Aged About 2 Years Minor She Is Through Her Natural Guardian Mother She Is Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kanti Bai, R/o Gram Jagipur, Thana- Kota, Bilaspur, Chhattisgah., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ganga Bai W/o Tijau Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Gram Jagipur, Thana- Kota, Bilaspur, Chhattisgah., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 4 - Tirith Ram Gond Aged About 30 Years R/o 86, Jogipur, P.S.- Kota 2 Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver) 5 - Dilharan Dhruv S/o Late Ramhu Dhruv Aged About 38 Years R/o 86, Jogipur, Kota, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None though served SB – Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 12/08/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 17/12/2018 passed by learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 485/17 whereby compensation of Rs. 9,77,200/- has been awarded in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants and liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that at the time of the accident, deceased Lala Ram was sitting in the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing Registration No. CG 10 W 0722 along with the Driver unauthorizedly as according to the Registration Certificate (Ex. D/1), the seating capacity of the Tractor was only 3 1, however, the Claims Tribunal has relied upon the Insurance policy (Ex. D/1A) whereby the seating capacity has been mentioned as 2 and proceeded to fasten the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Company ignoring the fact that in case of a conflict between Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy, the Registration Certificate would prevail and since the deceased was sitting as a passenger, therefore, his case is not covered by the terms of the Insurance Policy (Ex. D/1A). However, in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Manaura Khatun v. Ramesh Kumar Singh1, the principle of pay and recovery could have been invoked by the Claims Tribunal. 3. None appeared for the respondents, though served. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the record would show that as per the plea raised by the claimants, deceased Lala Ram used to work as a Labourer in the Tractor bearing Registration No. CG-10/W-0722, however, they have not clearly stated that deceased used to work in the Tractor in the capacity of employee and no evidence has been brought on record by them in this regard. It is apparent from the Registration Certificate (Ex. D/1), which is a valid document for demonstrating the seating capacity of the vehicle, that the seating capacity of the Tractor is only 1. 1 (2017) 4 SCC 796 4 6. The appellant/Insurance Company have specifically pleaded in their written statement that on the date of the accident, deceased was travelling in the Tractor along with the driver unauthorizedly as the seating capacity of the Tractor is only 1 as per the Registration Certificate and no premium was paid for covering the risk of the person other than the driver, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. 7. Thereafter, in order to prove its plea, the Insurance Company have examined Umesh Kumar Tripathi (NA.W. – 1), who was working at the RTO Office as well as Officer of the Insurance Company namely Dushyant Kumar Verma (NA.W.-2) who have categorically stated that the seating capacity of the Tractor is only 1 i.e. for the Driver and no other person is allowed to sit in the Tractor other than the Driver. 8. As such, in view of the Registration Certificate (Ex. D/1) wherein it has clearly been stated that the seating capacity of the Tractor is only 1, which has duly been proved by the witnesses of the Insurance Company, the Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 9. However, in the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Manaura Khatun (supra) whereby death of persons travelling as “gratuitous passengers” in the vehicle occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of a private vehicle, their Lordships have clearly held that in such a case, appellant 5 claimants were entitled for an order against the insurer to pay the awarded sum to claimants and then to recover the said amount from the insured i.e. owner. 10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Manaura Khatun (supra), the principle of pay and recover is applied and it is hereby directed that the Insurance Company would firstly pay compensation to the claimants and thereafter, recover it from the owner of the Tractor. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Harneet