Appeal by vehicle owner against tribunal award in a fatal tractor accident claim. The court held the insurance policy covered only own damage and third party risk, not labourers, so liability rested on the owner; following Shivaraj v. Rajendra it declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal.
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-
2025:CGHC:36187
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 99 of 2019
Bharat Lal Patel S/o Parkhit Patel Aged About 52 (at present aged about 58 years) Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Karichhapar, P.S., Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh, DistrictRaigarh, Chhattisgarh..........(Owner)
... Appellant (s)
versus
1 - Ramesh Sidar S/o Karmaha Sidar Aged About 45 Years Occupation None
2 - Smt. Janki Bai W/o Ramesh Sidar Aged About 40 Years Occupation None
3 - Minor Janet S/o Ramesh Aged About 10 Years Minor Occupation Student
4 - Minor Radheshyam S/o Ramesh Aged About 12 Years
5 - Minor Jivardhan S/o Ramesh Aged About 14 Years
6 - Minor Kumar Meena D/o Ramesh
No. 4 to 6 are Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Father Ramesh Sidar
All R/o Village Karichhapar, P.S., Chakradhrnagar, Raigarh,tahsil Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.........(Claimants)
7 - Kran Manjhi S/o Hemanand Manjhi Aged About 27 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Loing, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh..........(Driver)
Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.12 10:26:01 +0530
8 - Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Raigarh, 2nd Floor Sattigudi Chowk, Dadar Bazar Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh............(Insurer)
... Respondent(s)
-2-
________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate For Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment On Board
25/07/2025
-3-
their vehicle is also denied. The vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3 therefore if it is held that Pintu died due to motor accidental injuries caused by vehicle fo non-applicants No. 1& 2 then the liability to pay amount of compensation would be upon respondent No.3
-4-
deposited premium for six employees/labourers and therefore when once insurance company has charged premium covering risk for labourer travelling in tractor trolley, insurance company cannot escape from its liability to indemnify the insured. In support of her contention she referred to insurance policy placed on record as Ex.D-1 and Ex.D2. She submits that at the time of accident deceased was travelling on tractor trolley and therefore liability to satisfy the amount of compensation was upon insurance company.
-5-
not in dispute that deceased was travelling on tractor at the time of accident and he fell down from tractor due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor.
-6-
“10. The High Court, however, found in favour of Respondent 2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person, namely, the driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (Respondent 2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor. That conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case.
11 . At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant claimant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh², Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.4 and including b Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singhs. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent 2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to Respondent 2 insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the
-7-
same from the tractor owner, Respondent 1. ”
Sd/-- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Praveen
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurer was liable to pay compensation where no premium covering labourers/workers travelling on the tractor-trolley was paid.
Whether the tribunal's direction to recover compensation from the owner despite breach of policy conditions was sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra & Anr.Relied on¶12
(2018) 10 SCC 432 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Bharat Lal Patel
Ramesh Sidar
Smt. Janki Bai
Minor Janet
Minor Radheshyam
Minor Kumar Meena
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
