Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Bimla Sahu

¶1

-1-

¶2

2026:CGHC:548

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 2173 of 2019

¶6

1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Officer, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Near Maruti Showroom, G.E. Road Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Deendayal S/o Late Tularam Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Darba, Post Darba, Tehsil Kurud, District- Dhamtri Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Ganeshram Sahu S/o Late Kaliram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Birejhar, Tehsil Kurud, District - Dhamtri Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Khemlal Sahu S/o Hariram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Birejhar, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtri Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Omprakash S/o Gabruram Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o Village - Bhaismundi, Post Naari, Tehsil Kurud, District - Dhamtri Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Iffco- Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Officer, Shop No. 205, 2nd Floor, M.M. Silver, Bhawan (Udyog Bhawan), Ring Road No. 1, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

Along with

¶16

MAC No. 1993 of 2019

¶17

1 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited 205, 2nd Floor, M.M. Silver Plaza, In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Near Mining Office, Ring Road, No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

-- Appellant

Versus

-2-

1 - Bimla Sahu Wd/o Late Shri Yaad Ram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Darba, Post Darba, Tahsil - Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶22

2 - Ku. Ashwani Sahu D/o Late Shri Yaad Ram Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bimla Sahu, R/o Village Darba, Post Darba, Tahsil - Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶23

3 - Ku. Vaishnavi Sahu D/o Late Shri Yaad Ram Sahu Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bimla Sahu, R/o Village Darba, Post Darba, Tahsil - Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶24

4 - Ku. Lalima Sahu D/o Late Shri Yaad Ram Sahu Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bimla Sahu, R/o Village Darba, Post Darba, Tahsil - Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶25

5 - Smt. Sevti Bai (Deleted) As Per The Hon'ble Court's Order Dated 20-02-2020.

¶26

6 - Ganesh Ram Sahu S/o Shri Kaliram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Birezer, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶27

7 - Khemlal Sahu S/o Shri Hariram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Birezer, Tahsil - Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tractor), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶28

8 - Omprakash S/o Gabru Ram Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Bhaismundi, Post - Nari, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Trollery), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶29

9 - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Incharge Officer, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Near Maruti Showroom, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶30

--- Respondent(s) Along with

¶31

MAC No. 2000 of 2019

¶32

1 - I F C O Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited 205, 2nd Floor, M.M. Silver Plaza, In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Near Mining Office, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶33

--- Appellant

¶34

Versus

¶35

1 - Deendayal S/o Late Tularam Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Darba, Post Darba, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶36

2 - Ganesh Ram Sahu S/o Shri Kaliram Sahu Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Birezer, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Dhamtari,

¶37

-3-

¶38

Chhattisgarh

¶39

3 - Khemlal Sahu S/o Shri Hariram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Birezer, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Tractor), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶40

4 - Omprakash S/o Gabru Ram Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Bhainsmundi Post Nari, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Trolley), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶41

5 - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Incharge Officer, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Near Maruti Showroom, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶42

--- Respondent(s)

¶43

Along with

¶44

MAC No. 2174 of 2019

¶45

1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Officer, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Near Maruti Showroom, G. E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ................. (Non Applicant No. 3), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶46

--- Appellant

¶47

Versus

¶48

1 - Smt. Bimla Sahu Wd/o Late Yaadram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Darba, Post Darba, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ......................... (Claimants), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶49

2 - Ku. Ashwini Sahu D/o Late Yaadram Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minors, Represented By Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bimla Bai, Wd/o Late Yaadram Sahu, Respondent No. 1, R/o Village Darba, Post Darba, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ......................... (Claimants), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶50

3 - Ku. Vaishnavi Sahu D/o Late Yaadram Sahu Aged About 10 Years Minors, Represented By Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bimla Bai, Wd/o Late Yaadram Sahu, Respondent No. 1, R/o Village Darba, Post Darba, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ......................... (Claimants), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶51

4 - Lalima Sahu D/o Late Yaadram Sahu Aged About 7 Years Minors, Represented By Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bimla Bai, Wd/o Late Yaadram Sahu, Respondent No. 1, R/o Village Darba, Post Darba, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ......................... (Claimants), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶52

5 - Smt. Sewti Bai Wd/o Late Tularam Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Darba, Post Darba, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ......................... (Claimants), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶53

6 - Ganeshram Sahu S/o Late Kaliram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Birejhar, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. .......................... (Driver), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶54

7 - Khemlal Sahu S/o Hariram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Birejhar, Tehsil

¶55

-4-

¶56

Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. .............................. Owner, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶57

8 - Omprakash S/o Gabruram Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Bhaismundi, Post Naari, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ........................ Owner Of Trolley, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶58

9 - Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Officer, Shop No. 205, 2nd Floor, M.M. Silver Bhawan, (Udyog Bhawan), Ring Road No. 1, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ........................... Insurer Of Trolley., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶59

	... Respondents
For respective appellants/ Insurance Companies	: Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate along with Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate and Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate
For Respondents/Claimants	: Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents/driver and owner	: Mr. Prakhar Dashore, Advocate holding
of the offending vehicle	the brief of Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate

¶60

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶61

06.01.2026

¶62

1. Heard.

¶63

1. MAC No.2173 of 2019 and MAC No.2000 of 2019 have been preferred against the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Circuit Court Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No.71 of 2018 dated 08.08.2019 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.87,162/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of injuries sustained by Deendayal/claimant and fastened 50% - 50% liability on insurers of tractor and insurer of trolley.

¶64

1. MAC No.2174 of 2019 and MAC No.1993 of 2019 have been preferred against the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Circuit Court Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim

¶65

-5-

¶66

Case No.70 of 2018 dated 08.08.2019, whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.8,13,750/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Yaadram Sahu and fastened 50% - 50% liability on both the Insurance Companies.

¶67

1. The facts in brief are that on 27.03.2018, Yaadram Sahu and Deendayal Sahu were travelling on a tractor and trolley for bringing ‘Farsi Patthar’ from Basin and while they were returning to Village Darra, the driver of the tractor lost control and trolley turned turtle, resultantly, Yaadram Sahu and Deendayal Sahu sustained injuries. Yaadram Sahu succumbed to the injuries. An FIR was lodged at Outpost Birejar, Police Station Kurud against the driver of the tractor.

¶68

1. The injured filed a Claim Case No.71 of 2018 claiming therein a sum of Rs.9,50,000/-. The insurer of tractor Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and insurer of trolley Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited were impleaded as respondents in that claim petition. They filed reply and denied the claim averments made in claim petition. Learned Tribunal framed issues; parties led evidence; thereafter, an award was passed and learned Tribunal fastened 50% - 50% liability on both the Insurance Companies.

¶69

1. The legal representatives of Yaadram Sahu filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein, they pleaded that the age of the deceased was 42 years at the time of accident and earning

¶70

-6-

¶71

Rs.10,000/- per month. They claimed a sum of Rs.40,50,000/-. Both the Insurance Companies filed their reply; learned Tribunal framed issues; parties led evidence and thereafter, an award was passed.

¶72

Mr. Patankar and Mr. Mahishwar, Advocates appearing for the respective Insurance Companies would submit that the deceased Yaadram Sahu and injured Deendayal Sahu were gratuitous passengers into the cabin of the tractor and thus, they were travelling in breach of conditions of the Insurance policy. They would further submit that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality while fastening liability with the Insurance Companies. They would contend that the learned Tribunal should have fastened liability with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. They would further contend that the tractor and trolley were not being used for agriculture purpose rather the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. They would argue that the driver of the tractor was transporting stones and four persons were travelling in the cabin. They would further argue that as the offending vehicle was not used for agriculture purpose and no premium was paid to cover the lives of labourers. They would pray to set aside the awards passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶73

1. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the driver and owner as well as claimants would oppose. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has considered this aspect at length and thereafter, fastened liability with the Insurance Companies. They would further submit that

¶74

-7-

¶75

according to the provisions of Rule 97(7) of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules of 1994’), tractor-trailer can be used for carrying labourers and the member of the family of agriculturist for the purpose of agriculture or any purpose connected with agriculture including sale and purchase of articles or agriculture. They would contend that the claimants specifically pleaded that the stones were being transported for agriculture purpose and in evidence AW2 namely Jitendra Sahu has proved this fact. They would submit that the appeals deserve to be dismissed.

¶76

1. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel appearing in death case would submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Yaadram Sahu Rs.4,500/- which is at lower side. He would further submit that the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of March, 2018 was Rs.7,930/- and learned Tribunal should have taken that figure. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has not granted proper compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants No.2 to 4. It is also argued that the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation for loss of consortium to claimant No.5, mother of the deceased. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶77

1. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶78

1. Admittedly, the deceased and injured were travelling in the trailer of the

¶79

-8-

¶80

tractor. The claimants pleaded in the claim petitions that late Yaadram Sahu and Deendayal Sahu were transporting ‘Farsi Patthar’ for agriculture purpose. AW2 namely, Jitendra Sahu in para 1 of his evidence categorically deposed that late Yaadram Sahu and Deendayal Sahu were transporting stones for agriculture purposes. The Insurance Companies failed to prove contrary. The Insurance Companies examined Punit Rathore for Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Khumeshwar Sahu for Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited. They specifically stated that no additional premium was paid by the owner of the offending vehicle to cover the lives of the labourers. They also pleaded that the offending vehicle was not being used for agriculture purpose, therefore, the liability cannot be fastened with the Insurance Companies.

¶81

1. A perusal of the pleading made in the claim petitions and evidence led by the parties, it can be presumed that the Insurance Companies failed to prove the fact that the stones were not being transported for agriculture purpose.

¶82

1. Rule 97(7) of the Rules of 1994 permits tractor-trailer for carrying labourers and the member of the family of agriculturist for the purpose of agriculture or any purpose connected with agriculture. Rule 97(7) of the Rules of 1994 is reproduced herein below :

¶83

“R.97(7) Carriage of person in Goods Carriage - Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2) but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) such tractor-trailer other than those

¶84

-9-

¶85

registered in the name of industrial organisation. Municipal Institutions, water supply institution and non-agricultural cooperative societies, and the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7300 Kgs. may be used for the following purposes-

¶86

(i)for carrying labourers and the member of the family of agriculturist for the purpose of agriculture or any purpose connected with agriculture including sale and purchase of articles or agriculture.

¶87

(ii) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

¶88

1. Taking into consideration the facts, evidence led by the parties and provisions of Rule 97(7) of the Rules of 1994, in my opinion, learned Tribunal rightly fastened liability with the Insurance Companies. Accordingly, all appeals preferred by the Insurance Companies are hereby dismissed .

¶89

1. Now coming to the cross-appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation on account of Yaadram Sahu. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Rs.4,500/- which is certainly at lower side looking to the minimum wages matrix admissible to an unskilled labourer. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of March, 2018 was Rs.7,930/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income of the deceased. Further, learned Tribunal has granted a lump-sum amount of Rs.75,000/- to the claimants No.2 to 4 who are children of the deceased. The children of the deceased are entitled for sum of Rs.40,000/- each on head of loss of consortium. Learned Tribunal also failed to award compensation on head of loss of consortium to the mother of the deceased. Accordingly, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below:

¶90

-10-

¶91

Sr.No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compens awarded Court	ation by	this
1.	Income	Rs.4,500 x12 = Rs.54,000/-	Rs.7,930 Rs.95,160/	x -	12 =
2.	Future Prospect	25% of 54,000 = 13,500 54,000+ 13,500= 67,500	25% of 23,790 95,160+ =1,18,950/	95,1 -	60 = 23,790
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/4 =Rs. 16,875/- 67,500 – 16875 = 50,625/-	(-) ¼ = 29, 1,18,950 – 89,213	737 29	,737 =
4.	Multiplier	(x) 14 = Rs. 7,08,750/-	(x) 14 =Rs.	12,4	8,982/-
5.	Other heads loss of Consortium (for respondent No.1/wife)	Rs.40,000/-	Rs.40,000/	-
6.	Loss of Consortium for respondents No.2 to 4/children	Rs.75,000/-	Rs.40,000/ 1,20,000/-	-x	3 =
7.	Loss of Consortium for respondent No.5/mother	Nil	Rs.40,000/	-
8.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000	/-
9.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000	/-
10.	Total	Rs. 8,13,750/-	Rs. 14,78,	982/-

¶92

1. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.8,13,750/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.14,78,982/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.8,13,750/-, the claimants are entitled for an

¶93

-11-

¶94

additional amount of Rs.6,65,232/- . The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions of award shall remain intact. Both the Insurance Companies shall equally make payment of compensation to the claimants.

¶95

1. Accordingly, cross appeal preferred by the claimants is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove.

¶96

Sd/-

¶97

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶98

Rekha

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Bimla Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Bimla Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jawahar Lal Vs Anil Kumar

Ramanuj Sharma Vs the Municipal Corporation

Smt. Sneh Prabha and Ors. Vs Smt. Kamla Bai and Ors.

Raj Mohan Kashyap Vs Rajesh Yadav

Kulwant Chawla Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Harish Chandra Nishad Vs Shri Tikeshwar