Partly allowed

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Pintu @ Dushyant Yadav

Chhattisgarh HC21 Aug 2025MAC/270/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals arising from a common motor accident award: the Tribunal exonerated the insurer but directed pay-and-recover for a deceased gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. The High Court set aside that direction holding liability on the owner, and enhanced compensation using age 40-45 with multiplier 14.

What did the court decide?

Pay-and-recover direction against insurer set aside; owner liable; compensation enhanced to Rs 14,56,482 at 8% interest; owner's appeal dismissed.

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Pintu @ Dushyant… — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

1 / 10

2025:CGHC:42690

NAFR

PAWAN KUMAR JHA

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGRH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA MAC No. 270 of 2025

¶6

United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Second Floor, Gurukripa Tower, Vayapar Vihar, Opposite Amber Automobile, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

Pintu @ Dushyant Yadav Resident of Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.) ( Driver )

¶10

Salik Ram S/o Bhulau Ram Yadav Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ( Owner )

¶11

Rajkishore Yadav S/o Late Ramprasad Yadav Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Parsada (Lakhram), Ratanpur, P.S. And Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)( Non-Applicant No. 4 )

¶12

Tilli @ Akash Yadav S/o Nand Kumar Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Parsada (Lakhram), Ratanpur, P.S. And Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)( Non-Applicant No. 5 )

¶13

Kanak Sahu W/o Late Ramayan Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Parsaudi, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

Madhu Sahu D/o Late Ramayan Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Parsaudi, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶15

Amit Sahu S/o Late Ramayan Sahu Aged About 15 Years Minor ThroughNatural Guardian Mother Kanak Sahu, R/o Village Parsaudi, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

Trijugi Bai Sahu D/o Late Ramayan Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Parsaudi, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ( Claimants )

¶17

--- Respondents

¶18

WITH

¶19

MAC No. 2299 of 2024

¶20

Salik Ram S/o Shri Bhulau Ram Yadav, Aged About 53 Years R/o Bandwapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Post Office-Secl, Tahsil-Bilaspur, Police

¶21

2 / 10

¶22

Station-Sarkanda, District-Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) --------(Owner Of Magic Chota Hathi No. CG-13-L-6877)

¶23

--- Appellant

¶24

Versus

¶25

Kanak Sahu W/o Late Shri Ramayan Sahu, Aged About 54 Years

¶26

Madhu Sahu D/o Late Shri Ramayan Sahu, Aged About 25 Years

¶27

Amit Sahu S/o Late Shri Ramayan Sahu, Aged About 22 Years

¶28

Trijugi Bai Sahu D/o Late Shri Lakheswar Kaiwarth, Aged About 32 Years All are R/o Village-Parsodi, Police Station-Ratanpur, District-Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶29

Pintu @ Dushyant Yadav, Occupation-Driver, R/o Patharia, District-Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) ------(Driver of Magic Chota Hathi No. CG-13-L-6877)

¶30

The United Insurance Company Limited, Through- Manager, Branch Office, Second Floor, Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar, Opposite Amber Automobile, Bilaspur, Police Station-Civil Line, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ------(Insurance Company of Magic Chota Hathi No. CG-13-L-6877)

¶31

Rajkishore Yadav S/o Late Shri Ramprasad Yadav, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village-Parsada (Lakhram), Ratanpur, Police Station And Tehsil- Ratanpur, District-Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶32

Tilli @ Akash Yadav S/o Shri Nandkumar Yadav, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village-Parsada (Lakhram), Ratanpur, Police Station And Tehsil- Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶33

--- Respondents

¶34

WITH

¶35

MAC No. 233 of 2025

¶36

Kanak Sahu W/o Late Shri Ramayan Sahu, Aged About 47 Years

¶37

Madhu Sahu D/o Late Shri Ramayan Sahu, Aged About 18 Years

¶38

Amit Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Ramayan Sahu, Aged About 15 Years, Minor through mother appellant No. 1.

¶39

Trijugi Bai Sahu D/o Late Shri Lakheswar Kaiwarth, Aged About 25 Years All are R/o Village-Parsodi, Police Station-Ratanpur, District-Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶40

--- Appellant

¶41

Versus

¶42

Pintu @ Dushyant Yadav, R/o Patharia, District-Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) -----(Driver of Magic Chota Hathi No. CG-13-L-6877)

¶43

Salik Ram S/o Shri Bhulau Ram Yadav, Aged About 45 Years R/o Bandwapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Post Office-SECL, Tahsil-Bilaspur, Police

¶44

3 / 10

¶45

Station-Sarkanda, District-Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) --------(Owner Of Magic Chota Hathi No. CG-13-L-6877)

¶46

The United Insurance Company Limited, Through- Manager, Branch Office, Second Floor, Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar, Opposite Amber Automobile, Bilaspur, Police Station-Civil Line, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ------(Insurance Company of Magic Chota Hathi No. CG-13-L-6877)

¶47

Rajkishore Yadav S/o Late Shri Ramprasad Yadav, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village-Parsada (Lakhram), Ratanpur, Police Station And Tehsil- Ratanpur, District-Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶48

Tilli @ Akash Yadav S/o Shri Nandkumar Yadav, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village-Parsada (Lakhram), Ratanpur, Police Station And Tehsil- Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶49

--- Respondents

¶50

MAC No. 270 of 2025

¶51

For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 to 8 : Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate

¶52

MAC No. 2299 of 2024

¶53

For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶54

MAC No. 233 of 2025

¶55

For Appellants : Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶56

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶57

Judgment On Board

¶58

22/08/2025

¶59

As these appeals arise out of the same award (amended award dated 17.10.2024), passed in Claim Case No. 415/17, by Learned Tenth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the claim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total compensation of ₹ 13,67,269 to the

¶60

4 / 10

¶61

claimants, they are being heard together and dispose of by this common judgment.

¶62

MAC No. 270 of 2025 is filed by appellant-insurance company challenging the direction issued by the Claims Tribunal of pay and recover, on the ground that the offending vehicle is a goods vehicle, it met with an accident while carrying passengers. No premium was paid by the insured for covering risk of passengers and therefore direction of pay and recover is erroneous.

¶63

MAC No. 2299 of 2024 is filed by owner of offending vehicle challenging liability fastened upon him on the ground that the vehicle owned by him was used for carrying passengers without his knowledge. He had given his vehicle to non-applicant No. 4 for the purpose of transporting goods and therefore if for any reason liability is to be fastened upon owner then Respondent No. 7/ non-applicant No. 4 also be held liable to satisfy the amount of compensation.

¶64

MAC No. 233 of 2025 is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶65

Facts of the case in nutshell are that on 03.05.2017 at about 9:00 p.m., Ramayan Prasad Sahu, while going from Village Parsada to Jamnipali Darri (Korba) in baarat procession of his friend, met with an accident near Jhulanala, Kutelamuda. The vehicle Magic Chhota Hathi No. CG-13/L-6877 (for short called as “offending vehicle”) on which Ramayan Prasad Sahu was travelling, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, fell into a drain, causing grievous internal injuries to Ramayan Prasad Sahu, who later died during treatment at CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur on 04.05.2017.

¶66

Claimants who are widow and children of deceased Ramayan Sahu filed application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 37,00,000 on the basis of pleadings made therein.

¶67

5 / 10

¶68

In reply, non-applicant No.2 (owner) pleaded that the offending vehicle was given to non-applicant No.4, a relative, without any hire or fare, on the request for transporting marriage-related goods. It was further stated that non-applicant No.4 engaged non-applicant No.5 as driver. Non-applicant No.2 denied liability for the accident, stating that after handing over the vehicle, he had no control over its use, and that liability, if any, lies with nonapplicants No.1, 4, and 5.

¶69

Insurance company (non-applicant No.3) admitted the insurance policy but denied liability on the ground that the deceased was traveling as a passenger in a goods vehicle. It was pleaded that no premium was paid to cover risk of passengers travelling in goods carrier, at the time of accident, vehicle was being used without valid permit, fitness, and licence, amounting to breach of policy conditions. Therefore, any liability, if arises, rests solely on the vehicle owner (non-applicant No.2).

¶70

Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties allowed the application in part, holding that deceased-Ramayan Prasad died due to fatal injuries suffered to him in motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver-non-applicant No. 1. Tribunal computed the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 13,67,269. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was found to be proved, exonerated insurance company from its liability, however, issued direction to the Insurance company to first pay and thereafter to recover amount so paid from non-applicants No. 1 & 2.

¶71

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record.

¶72

So far as appeal filed by insurance company ie., MAC No. 270 of 2025 is concerned, from the pleadings made in the application it is appearing that on 03.05.2017 deceased Ramayan Prasad Sahu along with others were

¶73

6 / 10

¶74

travelling on Tata Magic Chhota Hathi (goods carriage) bearing number CG13-L-6877 and going to attend Baarat procession. On the way, due to rash and negligent driving it overturned and deceased along with others suffered grievous injuries. Ramayan Prasad Sahu succumbed to the motor accidental injuries suffered by him. Police after conclusion of investigation have submitted Final Report which is filed along with appeal filed by owner in MAC No. 2299 of 2024 which mentions that the charge-sheet was filed against driver of offending vehicle Dushyant Kumar Yadav @ Pintu/ Nonapplicant No. 1 for alleged offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC and Section 66/192, 119/177, 3/181, 5/180 of the Act of 1988. In the Final Report, it is also mentioned that on the date of accident about 22-23 persons were travelling on the goods vehicle and on being asked by the driver about the licence, driver has not handed over driving licence to the investigating agency. Claimant No. 1 in his evidence before the Claims Tribunal has also stated in accordance with the pleadings made in the claim application about deceased travelling on the offending vehicle (goods vehicle) and going to Barat procession.

¶75

Owner of offending vehicle was also examined before the Claims Tribunal as NAW-2. In his evidence, he shown his unawareness about the fact that at the time of accident 22-23 persons were travelling on the offending vehicle. However, in para-19 of his evidence, he stated that his goods carriage vehicle was borrowed by one of his relative, however, name of relative has not been specified in his evidence. Copy of insurance policy is also placed on record as Ext. D-1, perusal of which would show that the policy was issued for goods carriage vehicle, public carrier and it is liability only policy. Before this Court also, learned counsel for owner of offending vehicle, appellant in MAC No. 2299 of 2024, has not disputed the fact that the policy issued by the insurance company, is for the goods carriage vehicle and the policy is liability

¶76

7 / 10

¶77

only policy. In his evidence he had not specified the person to whom he has

¶78

given vehicle, though stated to be his relative.

¶79

In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, reported in

¶80

(2003) 2 SCC 223 , Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus:

¶81

“26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-à-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words “any person” must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. “a third party”. Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor.

¶82

Relying upon the decision of Asha Rani (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶83

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur reported in 2004 (2) SCC 1 has

¶84

observed thus:

¶85

“ 20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.

¶86

21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. ... ”

¶87

In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, though the Claims Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from its liability, however, erred in issuing direction to pay and

¶88

8 / 10

¶89

recover to the insurance company, overlooking the fact that the deceased was gratuitous person against whom risk under the policy was not covered. It is not a case that risk of person against whom claim was made was covered under the policy, however, Insurance Company exonerated from its liability on the ground of breach of conditions of insurance policy like driver was not possessed with valid permit and fitness certificate of the vehicle and therefore direction issued by the Claims Tribunal to the insurance company to first pay the amount and thereafter to recover the same is not sustainable and it is set aside. It is held that the liability to satisfy the compensation is upon the owner of offending vehicle.

¶90

In view of the aforementioned observation and discussion, MAC No. 270 of 2025 filed by insurance company is allowed in part and MAC No. 2299 of 2024 filed by owner is dismissed.

¶91

Now, I will consider appeal MAC No. 233 of 2025 filed by claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶92

Learned counsel for appellants-claimants submitted that claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation only on the ground that Claims Tribunal erred in assessing age of deceased as 49 years, whereas age of the deceased as mentioned in post-mortem report is 40 years only. Age of deceased as 49 years is assessed based on evidence of claimant No. 1 wherein it has come that according to marksheet of Class-12th date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 01.03.1968, however, marksheet is not marked as exhibit. The document which is relied upon by the Claims Tribunal is not available in record and therefore in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal committed error in determining age of deceased only on the basis of oral evidence as mentioned in the impugned award. However, from perusal of evidence of AW-1, it does not appear that date of birth is specifically stated by witness AW-1 in her evidence. With regard to age the only document available on record is post mortem report wherein deceased was shown 40

¶93

9 / 10

¶94

years and therefore in the facts of the case, age of deceased can be considered in between 40-45 years. Accordingly the multiplier of 14 will now be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.

¶95

No other ground is raised by the counsel for appellant seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

¶96

For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to claimants in MAC No. 233 of 2025 requires recomputation, which is as under.

¶97

Particulars	Compensation
• Annual Loss of income/ dependency =	₹ 12,48,982/-
₹ 95,160/-
• After deduction of 1/4 towards personal and
living expenses = ₹ 71,370
• After addition 25%towards loss of future prospects = ₹ 89,213
• Multiplier of 14
₹ 89,213 x 14 = ₹ 12,48,982/-
Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1	₹ 44,000/-
Loss of parental consortium to Appellants No. 2 to 4 (₹ 44,000 x 3)	₹ 1,32,000/-
Loss of estate	₹ 16,500/-
Funeral Expenses	₹ 15,000/-
Total	₹ 14,56,482/-

¶98

Now the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 14,56,482/- instead of ₹ 13,67,269/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

¶99

Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶100

Rest of the conditions of impugned award as imposed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.

¶101

10 / 10

¶102

Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company and claimants in MAC No. 270 of 2025 and MAC No. 233 of 2025 are allowed and the appeal MAC No. 2299 of 2024 filed by owner is dismissed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove.

¶103

Sd/-

¶104

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶105

pwn

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Pintu @ Dushyant Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Pintu @ Dushyant Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Sodhi Vs Midun Krishna

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Anita Netam

Sukhram Kowasi Vs Diwakar Sona

Kanak Sahu Vs Pintu @ Dushyant Yadav

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Dinesh Kumar Rathore

Dinesh Kumar Rathore Vs Shiv Kumar Pandey