1 2026:CGHC:12798 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2103 of 2024 1 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited First Floor , Wolfort Ozone Complex , Bilaspur Road Fafadih Chowk Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Through Its Legal Manager Present And Correct Address- O昀케ce No. 403, 4th Floor , Db, City Corporate Park, Flat No.1, Block No.9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Mala Chouhan W/o Late Ramvinay Chouhan Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Lakhipur Post- Jamal, Mirzpur District Mau (U.P), Present R/o - House Of Mithlesh, Ward No.9 Shanti Nagar Ward, Birgaon, P.S Urla District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shubhanshu Chouhan, M/o Smt. Mala Chouhan Aged About 8 Years R/o Village Lakhipur Post- Jamal, Mirzpur District Mau (U.P), Present R/o - House Of Mithlesh, Ward No.9 Shanti Nagar Ward, Birgaon, P.S Urla District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Himanshum M/o Smt. Mala Chouhan. R/o Village Lakhipur Post- Jamal, Mirzpur District Mau (U.P), Present R/o - House Of Mithlesh, Ward No.9 Shanti Nagar Ward, Birgaon, P.S Urla District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Shivshankar Chouhan, S/o Late Harihar Chouhan, Aged About 65 Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.03.24 17:43:46 +0530 2 Years R/o Village Lakhipur Post- Jamal, Mirzpur District Mau (U.P), Present R/o - House Of Mithlesh, Ward No.9 Shanti Nagar Ward, Birgaon, P.S Urla District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Basanti Chouhan, W/o Shivshankar Chouhan Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Lakhipur Post- Jamal, Mirzpur District Mau (U.P), Present R/o - House Of Mithlesh, Ward No.9 Shanti Nagar Ward, Birgaon, P.S Urla District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Rekela Yadhagiri S/o Pichaih, Aged About 39 Years R/o House No. 7- 7-39, Ward No. 01 Penagal, District- Nalgonda (Telangana) Driver Of Truck Vehicle No. Ts- 15 Uc- 4239 7 - Sai Thirumala Steal Traders, Proprietor- Ravinder Reddy, R/o 9-6 Hy N 102/2, Behind D Mart, Ramchandrapuram (Telangana) Owner Of Truck Vehicle No.Ts- 15 Uc- 4239 8 - Venkatesh, S/o Mogulappa, Aged About 29 Years R/o Manik Nagar, Old Tandoor, District - Rangareddy (Telangana) Driver Of Motorcycle Vehicle No.Ap- 28 Dj - 5755 9 - Yarolla Venkatesh S/o Way Yadeh, R/o - House No. 4- 113/7 P.S Shankarapalli, District- Rangareddy (Telangana) Owner Of Motorcycle Vehicle No. Ap- 28 Dj- 5755 ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Shri A.L. Singroul, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 17/03/2026 1. Challenge in this appeal is to award dated 24.7.2024 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case 3 No.1090/2021. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.58,80,000, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.19,79,400 in favour of respondents No.1 to 5 on account of death of Ramvinay Chouhan in an accident that occurred on 24.3.2021 by rash and negligent driving of the o昀昀ending vehicle truck bearing registration No.TS 15 UC 4239 driven by respondent No.6, owned by respondent No.7 and insured with the appellant. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application 昀椀led under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’), the deceased died in the said accident. He was aged about 31 years and was earning Rs.18,000 per month working as a driver. Thus, claiming the above stated compensation, the claim application was 昀椀led. 3. The claim application was resisted by the appellant/insurance company on various counts including violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Claims Tribunal framed as many as 5 issues and decided them in favour of respondents No.1 to 5/claimants and awarded the above stated compensation. However, with regard to issue No.2, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the o昀昀ending vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus the insurance company was exonerated, however, the learned Claims Tribunal passed an order of pay and recover. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the 昀椀nding recorded by the Claims Tribunal with regard to 4 negligence is bad in law. The deceased was riding a motorcycle which dashed to the o昀昀ending vehicle. Thus, there has to be apportionment of the negligence and thus the impugned award deserves to be reduced suitably. She further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed an error in passing the order of pay and recover. She further submits that an FIR was lodged against the driver of the motorcycle by the driver of the o昀昀ending vehicle. 5. Opposing the above submission, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5/claimants submits that the deceased was a pillion rider in the motorcycle and the motorcycle was not being driven by the deceased. Thus, this is not a case of contributory negligence, rather it is a case of composite negligence. He placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and others, (2008) 3 SCC 748. Apart from this, he submits that merely the driver of the o昀昀ending truck lodged a report against the driver of the motorcycle does not mean that the driver of the truck was not negligent. Adequate evidence is available on record which goes to show the negligence on the part of the driver of the o昀昀ending truck. He further submits that the MV Act is a benevolent legislation and thus the order of pay and recover may not be disturbed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with due care. 5 7. The 昀椀rst contention of learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company is that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. This contention is misplaced. Admittedly, the deceased was not driving the motorcycle, rather he was a pillion rider on the motorcycle. Thus, it is a case of composite negligence not of contributory negligence and in this regard reliance can safely be placed on the judgment of T.O. Anthony (supra). 8. The next contention of learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company is that FIR was lodged against the driver of the motorcycle by the driver of the o昀昀ending truck. From perusal of the evidence on record, it is quite apparent that the negligence was said to have been caused against the driver of the o昀昀ending vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal on the basis of assessment of the evidence on record found the driver of the o昀昀ending vehicle negligent. In the opinion of this Court, the 昀椀nding arrived at by the learned Claims Tribunal does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. Thus, this contention is also rejected. 9. The third contention of learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company with regard to application of doctrine of pay and recover is also liable to be rejected as the insurance company was exonerated on the ground of violation of the insurance policy because the driver of the o昀昀ending truck was not having driving licence. In the light of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. 6 Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297, this contention is also rejected. 10. The appeal thus fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal