Appeal by legal heirs of a deceased pillion rider against a Tribunal award exonerating the insurer under an Act Only Policy. The court held a gratuitous pillion rider is not covered and the owner cannot claim compensation, dismissing the appeal at motion stage.
None granted; appeal dismissed at motion stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 976 of 2024
1. Santram Banjare S/o Late Ferharam Banjare, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village-Kathiya Khauli, P.S. - Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Toran Banjare S/o Late Ferharam Banjare, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Kathiya Khauli, P.S.- Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1. Golu @ Sandeep Banjare S/o Santram Banjare, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Kathiya Khauli, P.S. - Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur (C.G.) ----(Driver And Owner Of Motorcycle No. CG-04-NL-3614)
2. Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Through The Divisional Manager, Second Floor, Simran Tower, Govind Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ----(Insurer of Motorcycle No. CG-04-NL-3614)
---- Respondents
CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board
13.06.2024
1. This Appeal has been preferred against the award passed by 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur(C.G.) in Claim Case No.1039/2022 whereby the insurance company was exonerated from the liability on the ground that the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation, as the liability to pay the same is on him and also the insurance company would not liable to pay compensation to pillion rider being a gratuitous passenger under Act Only Policy.
2
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.10.2022, deceased, father of the claimants, namely Ferharam Banjare was pillion rider in motor-cycle bearing registration No.CG 04 NL 3614 which was being driven by the son of claimant No.1 namely Golu @ Sandeep Banjare, while returning from the village Kathia and while driving the motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No.1, the said motor-cycle met with an accident, as a result of which, deceased Ferharam Banjare, who is father of the claimants, died. Hence on 24.11.2022, claim petition was preferred by the claimants against the son of the claimant No.1/ driver and owner of the motor-cycle and also against the insurance company of the offending motor-cycle. After completion of enquiry, the impugned award has been passed and the insurance company has been exonerated. Hence this Appeal has been preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law in exonerating the respondent/insurance company by holding that the deceased was not the third party. Learned counsel prays to allow the appeal and to fasten the liability upon the insurance company.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award.
5. It is settled law that the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. In the instant case, the son of the claimant No.1 has caused accident, in which the father of the claimants has died while sitting as a
3
pillion rider in the motor-cycle. The insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation to the pillion rider being a gratuitous passenger under the Act Only Policy and learned counsel for the appellants fairly admits that the insured had not obtained any comprehensive policy and only Act only policy had been issued by respondent No.2.
6. In the matter of Shubham Kumar Suryavanshi and Others vs. Munnalal Suryavanshi and Another , 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 3161 , this Court has followed the principle laid down by catena of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court that the insurance company would not be liable to pay the compensation to pillion rider being a gratuitous passenger under Act Only Policy and the relevant Para 6 to 10 read thus:-
6. In the matter of General Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd v. M. Laxmi AIR 2009 SC 626 it was held that in the event of an accidental death of a pillion rider of a scooter, being a gratuitous passenger, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay compensation.
7. In the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Sudhakaran K.V., (AIR) 2008 SC 2729 the following has been held in para19:-
" 19. The law which emerges from the said decisions, is: (i) the liability of the insurance company in a case of this nature is not extended to a pillion rider of the motor vehicle unless the requisite amount of premium is paid for covering his/her risk, (ii) the legal obligation arising under Section 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicle or the pillion rider; (iii) the pillion rider in a two wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when the accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of the driver of another vehicle."
8. In the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Tilak Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 404 it has been held in para-21 thus:-
" 21 . In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani's case, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contention of the appellant insurance company
4
that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger."
9. Apart from the above, this Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamta Prasad Sahu (MAC No.618/2013, decided on 6.5.2021) also reiterated the settled legal position that the pillion rider travelling on a two wheeler is not entitled to get any compensation or coverage under the 'Act only policy' i.e. policy issued strictly to meet the requirement under Section 147 of the Act. It is also settled law that, by virtue of the relevant Circulars/Notifications issued by the IRDA in the year 2009, the scope of which has already been discussed and explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on many a time, that the position is different if the policy is a 'Comprehensive or Package policy, not being an 'Act only policy.'
10. In view of the above authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an occupant/inmate/passenger in a private vehicle, is not a third party, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the Insurance policy issued does not cover the risk of death of the deceased and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation is just and proper.
7. Further in the matter of Ningamma And Another vs United India Insurance Company Limited , reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 , it was observed and held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para 22 and 23, which read as under:-
22. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA.
23. When we apply the said principle into the facts of the present case we are of the view that the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA and to that extent the High Court was justified in coming to the
5
conclusion that the said provision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition, this Court does not find any merit or substance in this Appeal and accordingly this
Appeal is dismissed at the motion stage itself.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Avinash
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurance company is liable to compensate the legal heirs of a deceased pillion rider (gratuitous passenger) under an Act Only Policy.
Whether the owner's legal representatives can claim compensation when the driver-owner himself caused the accident.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shubham Kumar Suryavanshi and Others vs Munnalal Suryavanshi and AnotherFollowed¶6
2021 SCC OnLine Chh 3161 · Who else cites this
General Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd v. M. LaxmiRelied on¶6
AIR 2009 SC 626 · Who else cites this
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Sudhakaran K.V.Relied on¶7
(AIR) 2008 SC 2729 · Who else cites this
United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Tilak SinghRelied on¶8
(2006) 4 SCC 404 · Who else cites this
Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamta Prasad SahuReferred
MAC No.618/2013, decided on 6.5.2021
Ningamma And Another vs United India Insurance Company LimitedRelied on¶7
(2009) 13 SCC 710 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Santram Banjare
Toran Banjare
Golu @ Sandeep Banjare
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
