Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Gokul Sahu

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:47356

¶3

Digitally ABHIGYA signed by SAXENA ABHIGYA SAXENA

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 360 of 2018

¶7

1 - Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Bhilai, Address- First Floor, Above Dena Bank, Nandini Road, Power House Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Company Of Vehicle Trolley No. C.G.07-Z.G.-0634), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Gokul Sahu S/o Manihar Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Jevra Sirsa, Chowki Jevra Sirsa, Thana Pulgaon, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Mithilesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Kaushal Dewangan Aged About 22 Years R/o Sirsa Khurd (Jevra Sirsa) Chowki Jevra Sirsa, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.07-N.A.2903 And Trolley No. C.G.-07-Z.G.-0634), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Kaushal Prasad Dewangan S/o Nandlal Dewangan Aged About 47 Years R/o Jevra Sirsa (Sirsa Khurd) Near Tank, Chowki Jevra Sirsa, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.07-N.A.-2903), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Branch Manager H.D.F.C. Argo General Insurance Company Limited, H.D.F.C. House, First Floor, 165-166 Bekbey, Recall Mession, H.T.Parek Marg, Church Gate, Mumbai (Maharashtra) (Insurer

¶14

2

¶15

Company Of Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.07-N.A.-2903), District : Mumbai, Maharashtra

¶16

5 - Vasudev Banchor S/o Khilawan Prasad Banchor Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Basing, Police Chowki Jevra Sirsa, Thana Pulgaon, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle Trolley No. C.G.07-Z.G.-0634), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate, Mr. Prasanjeet Dutta, Advocate and Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate for their respective parties.

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

15.09.2025

¶22

This is an appeal by the appellant insurance company of the offending vehicle against the award dated 14.11.2017 passed by the 4^th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No.2548 of 2012, in which compensation of Rs.1,24,758/- has been granted in favour of the claimants fastening liability upon the insurance company.

¶23

Facts of the present case in brief are that on 13.01.2012, the injured claimant Gokul, along with others, was traveling in a tractor bearing registration number CG 07 NA 2903 attached to a trolley bearing registration number CG 07 ZG 0634, when due to rash and negligent driving by the driver, the tractor-trolley overturned, resulting in injuries to Gokul. The tractor is owned by respondent no. 3, Kaushal Prasad, and the trolley is owned by

¶24

3

¶25

respondent no. 5, Vasudev. The tractor was insured with respondent no. 4, H.D.F.C. Insurance, while the trolley was insured with the appellant, The New India Insurance Company Limited, under an Act Only Policy. The driver of the tractor-trolley was respondent no. 2, Mithlesh Kumar, who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. It is submitted that the trolley was used for commercial purposes, specifically for carrying bricks, and therefore, the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant or any occupant, as the insurance coverage under the Act Only Policy excludes such liabilities. Furthermore, the claimant Gokul was not a third party but was traveling in the offending vehicle itself, as clearly stated in the FIR. The learned Tribunal’s award against the appellant insurance company is erroneous and unsustainable in law and ought to be set aside accordingly. The appellant has challenged the Tribunal's findings as arbitrary and contrary to law, asserting that the claimant does not fall within the definition of a "third party" under the Act.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that it is not liable to indemnify any compensation in the present case, as the trolley bearing registration no. CG-07-ZG-0634 was insured under an Act Only Policy , which provides coverage only for third-party risks. As per the pleadings and evidence, including the deposition of the insurer’s witness Mr. Deepak Malik and the insurance policy marked as Exhibits D-1 and D-5, the said trolley

¶27

4

¶28

had zero seating capacity and was being used for the transportation of bricks. It is an admitted fact in the pleadings that the injured claimant, Gajendra Singh, was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, who does not fall within the definition of a "third party" under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Moreover, no premium was paid to cover any occupants, and thus the insurance coverage was limited strictly to third-party liability. Additionally, it is on record that the vehicle was being driven by Mithlesh Kumar without a valid driving licence, which constitutes a fundamental breach of policy conditions. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivraj v. Rajendra, (2018) 10 SCC 432, and Jagtar Singh v. Sanjeev Kumar, (2018) 15 SCC 189 , where the insurer was held not liable under similar circumstances, he further prays that the liability, if any, may be fastened on the owner and driver of the vehicle, and alternatively, in the interest of justice, a direction to "pay and recover" may be issued against them.

¶29

Learned counsel for claimant submits that the impugned Award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the case. He goes on to submit that the learned Tribunal has failed to award just, fair, and adequate compensation under various heads and has instead granted a grossly inadequate amount, thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellants. The Tribunal erred in assessing the compensation. In light of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to

¶30

5

¶31

be dismissed and the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced to ensure justice is done to the claimant.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company respectfully submits that the award passed by the Tribunal is patently erroneous, contrary to the evidence and facts on record, and bad in law. The Tribunal has misinterpreted the provisions of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and failed to appreciate that the claimant/respondent no.1, as per the FIR and Final Investigation Report, was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending tractor-trolley, which had no seating capacity except for the driver. The Tribunal overlooked the admitted position and statutory restrictions under Rule 28 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, and Rule 220 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. The risk of such passengers is not covered under the policy nor within the scope of "third party" as defined under Section 147 of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal failed to consider that the vehicle was being used in violation of its registration conditions and the driver did not hold a valid and effective driving licence. No cogent evidence was adduced by the claimant to establish rash and negligent driving by respondent no. 2, who himself denied liability in his testimony. The appellant’s witness substantiated the defences raised in the written statement, and relevant case law cited was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. The findings are perverse, arbitrary, and based on conjecture, warranting the

¶33

6

¶34

setting aside of the award, with the liability to compensate the claimant resting solely on the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

¶35

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶36

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and upon careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and submissions of the parties, this Court finds no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant insurance company. The learned Tribunal has duly considered the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, and has appropriately fastened liability on the insurer after evaluating the evidence on record. The appellant’s contentions regarding misinterpretation of law and non-coverage of the claimant as a third party have been rightly negatived by the Tribunal.

¶37

The claim for compensation was supported by adequate evidence, including the FIR and Final Investigation Report, establishing negligence and resulting injury to the claimant. The insurer’s plea of non-liability under an Act Only Policy and breach of conditions is a matter between the insurer and the owner and driver does not absolve the liability to compensate the claimant.

¶38

7

¶39

Considering the settled principles that the claimant is entitled to just and fair compensation, this Court finds that the impugned award does not warrant interference.

¶40

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) JUDGE

¶43

Saxena

Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gokul Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gokul Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Naik Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Secl)

Dallu Ram Sori Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Nirash Pati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager Vs Smt Ishwari Bai Alias Rajeshwari Sahu

Ram Bahadur Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Vishnu Dutt Vs State of Chhattisgarh