1 2026:CGHC:11643 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1114 of 2022  Aashish Kumar Chhabra S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Chhabra Aged About 40 Years R/o Punjabi Para, Bemetara, Tahsil And P.S. Bemetara Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) Through Its Power Of Attorney Nitin Ahuja, Aged About 35 Years, S/o Shri Sukhdeo Ahuja, R/o Sai Mandir Colony, Bhatapara Tahsil Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1. Katwara Bai W/o Late Punnu Ram Manhare Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Khamharia, Tahsil Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara Gramin, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2. Ashok Kumar S/o Late Punnu Ram Manhare Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Khamharia, Tahsil Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara Gramin, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3. Manharan S/o Late Punnu Ram Manhare Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Khamharia, Tahsil Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara Gramin, Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 4. Ravishanker Khilwade S/o Mahetaru Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Navkesha, P.S. Saja, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) (C.G. 07 C 3643) 5. H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Through Its Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company, Third Floor, Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/owner : Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate Claimants For Respondent No. 5/ : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Insurance Company Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.03 .2026 1. The owner of the vehicle has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act assailing the judgment and award passed by the learned SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.12 11:50:31 +0530 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar passed in Claim Case No. 18/2019 dated 08.07.2022, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,45,200/- with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum on account of death of Punnu Manhare in motor accident and fastened liability with the owner & driver of the offending vehicle. 2. The facts in brief are that on 16.04.2018 at around 12:05 am, the offending Truck bearing registration No. CG 07 C 3643 was carrying 17-18 labourers, near Bhatapara over bridge on account of rash and negligent driving, the Truck hit the divider and turned turtle, resultantly, the passengers including Punnu Manhare sustained serious injuries. Punnu Manhare was taken to hospital and he died during course of treatment on 03.05.2018. A claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act was filed by the widow and two children of the deceased, wherein, they pleaded that age of the deceased at the time of accident was 56 years and earning Rs. 10,500/- per month. The owner and driver filed reply to the claim petition and stated that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Truck and vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company filed reply and pleaded that the offending Truck was a goods carriage vehicle, whereas, on the date of accident, passengers were travelling in it, and thus, there was breach of conditions of Insurance policy. It was also pleaded that the life of the deceased was not covered with the Insurance policy. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. 3. Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate appearing for the appellant would argue that additional premium of Rs. 50/- was paid to cover risk of driver, helper and cleaner. He would submit that the deceased was an employee of the Truck, 3 therefore, the learned Tribunal should have fastened liability with the Insurance Company. He would contend that the Insurance Company failed to prove the fact that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a goods carriage vehicle. He would pray to set-aside the award. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate would oppose the submission made by Mr. Dembra. Mr. Kushwaha would submit that the Insurance Company examined Deepak Soni, Law officer of Insurance Company, who stated that offending vehicle was a goods carriage vehicle and was covered with liability only policy. This witness further stated that the deceased was unauthorized gratuitous passenger. This witness in cross-examination, admitted the fact that additional premium of Rs. 50/- was paid to cover risk of driver, conductor and cleaner. Mr. Kushwaha would submit that the evidence of Deepak Soni (NAW/3) would make it clear that the deceased was unauthorized gratuitous passenger in a goods carriage vehicle and no premium was paid to cover his life, and therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly fastened liability with the owner of the vehicle. It is also argued that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle failed to appear in the witness box. 5. Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate appearing for the claimants would support the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The deceased met with an accident on 17.04.2018 and on the same date FIR (Ex. A/2) was registered. FIR was lodged by Laxminarayan Tandon, who was a passenger in the offending vehicle. He stated in FIR that on the fateful date 17-18 labourers were travelling in the offending vehicle and it turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, resultantly, the 4 passengers sustained injuries. Merg-intimation (Ex. A/5) was registered on 09.05.2018. AW-1 Ashok Kumar deposed that deceased was his father. He further stated that his father sustained injuries as offending Truck turned turtle, and subsequently, after 15-16 days he succumbed to death. In cross- examination, this witness remained firm. This witness nowhere stated that his father was employed with the offending truck or owner of the Truck, even in cross-examination, no such suggestion was given by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 8. Laxminarayan Tandon(AW-2) was a co-passenger of the offending vehicle, who proved the accident. 9. The Insurance Company examined Deepak Soni, who categorically stated that gratuitous passengers were travelling in a goods carriage vehicle in breach of conditions of Insurance policy. 10. The driver and owner failed to enter into the witness box and there is no evidence to infer that the deceased was an employee of said offending Truck. Apparently there was breach of conditions of Insurance policy as 15- 16 labourers were travelling in goods carriage vehicle, and therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly fastened liability with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant