Chattisgarh High Court
Branch Manager vs Smt. Lalita Thakur on 13 June, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:23911
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 515 of 2019
1 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Anupama
Square, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Through Authorised
Signatory United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office 2nd
Floor, Gurukripa Towers, Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 495001,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellants
versus
1 - Smt. Lalita Thakur Wd/o Late Suresh Thakur Aged About 36 Years
Occupation House Wife,
2 - Minor Jaiprakash Thakur S/o Late Suresh Thakur Aged About 15 Years
3 - Minor Ku. Mamta Thakur D/o Late Suresh Thakur Minor,
Appellant No.2 and 3 Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lalita Thakur
(Respondent No. 1),
4 – (Died And Deleted) Lachhaman Thakur As Per Hon’ble Court’s Order
Dated 04-05-2023.
5 – Smt. Sulochana Bai W/o Lachhman Thakur Aged About 58 Years
All are R/o Village Sagunghat P.O. Leda Police Station Tongpal Tehsil
Chindagarh District Sukma Chhattisgarh. (Claimants).
6 – Sukhram Markam S/o Kodaram Markam Village Sagunghat Post Office
Leda Police Station Tongpal Tehsil Chindagarh District Sukma Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. B.N. Nandey, Advocate
Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
13/06/2025
1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) against the
Digitally
BALRAM signed by
impugned award dated 18.09.2018, passed in Claim Case
PRASAD BALRAM
DEWANGAN PRASAD
DEWANGAN
2
No.85/2016, whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) has awarded total
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the death of the driver of
offending vehicle in an application filed under Section 163-A of the Act,
1988.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the claimants being
the legal representative of the deceased filed an application under
Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of
Rs.17,97,000/- under different heads on account of death of Late
Suresh Kumar Thakur, who died in the road accident pleading therein
that on 10.06.2009 at about 7.30 o’clock, Suresh Kumar was
employed as driver of the offending tractor and trolley owned by
respondent No.1. On the date of accident, deceased on instructions of
respondent No.1/owner of the offending tractor was going to Tongpal
from Dharbha. When suddenly herd of animals came near Banjarin
Temple Road, in an attempt to save them, the vehicle fell into velly and
turned turtuled, as a result of which, Suresh Kumar Thakur died on the
spot. It was further pleaded that the deceased at the time of accident
was 30 years of young and healthy man and was working as driver
and earning Rs.3,333/- per month. The claimants are dependents
upon them and because of untimely death of their sole bread earner,
they are facing great financial crises.
3. The non-applicants/respondents filed their reply to the claim
application resisting the claim of claimants. Non-applicant
No.2/Insurance Company in its reply to the claim application denied
the happening of the incident with the offending vehicle. The death of
3
deceased Suresh Kumar was also denied in the said accident. It was
pleaded that on the date of incident, the offending vehicle was used for
carrying passenger and there were 20 – 25 persons in it. On the date
of the incident, the offending vehicle was being driven by the
deceased without a valid driving license, without the required fitness
certificate and permit and in violation of the conditions of the insurance
policy, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the
award of compensation.
4. The learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of the pleadings and
the evidence brought on record by the respective parties, allowed the
claim application in part awarded Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to
the claimants.
5. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company submits that the
vehicle involved in the accident is a tractor and trolley and though
insurance policy has been separately obtained, however, it was
obtained under farmers package policy and not as a commercial
vehicle. On the date of accident, admittedly, the tractor was carrying
Baratis of more than about 20 to 25 persons. As the vehicle is being
used for commercial purposes, there is breach of policy conditions.
Hence, the learned Claims Tribunal committed gross illegality in
fastening the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the
appellant/non-applicant No.3. He also submits that the learned Claims
Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,00,000/- in lump sum in an application filed
under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 relying upon the amended
schedule under Section 163A of the Act, 1988, which came into effect
from 22.05.2018. Whereas, the date of accident is 10.06.2009 i.e. prior
4
to the coming into force of amendment. He lastly contended that as
the driver himself died in the accident while driving the offending
vehicle, application under Section 163A of the Act, 1988 is not
maintainable.
6. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 opposes the
submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that
learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence and the
pleadings available on record have recorded a finding that there was
farmer package policy issued by the appellant/Insurance Company for
the tractor. In the evidence, the officer of the insurance company
(NAW-1) had admitted that the policy was issued covering the risk of
one person. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal after
appreciating all the evidence available on record has passed the
impugned award, which does not call for any interference.
7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents
placed on record.
8. Admittedly, in the tractor there is sitting capacity of one person i.e.
driver and in the case at hand, the case is against the death of driver
of the vehicle while driving the tractor. The learned Claims Tribunal
further taken note of the Rule 97 (7) of the C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules,
1994 (In short ‘the Rules, 1994’), wherein it permits for carrying the
person at the time of Mela, Market, Religious Programme and
Marriage and at other ceremonial occasions provided that the number
of persons so carried shall not exceed 20 at a time.
5
9. The provisions of Rule 97 (7) of the Rules, 1994 is extracted below for
ready reference :-
“Rule 97. Carriage of person in Goods Carriage.
1. xxxx
2. xxxx
3. xxxx
4. xxxx
5. xxxx
6. xxxx
7. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1)
and (2) but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) such
tractor-trailer other than those 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-
(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.
(ii) for carrying persons at the time of Mela,
Markets, Religious Functions, Marriages and at other
ceremonial occasions provided that the number of
persons so carried shall not exceed 20 at a time.”
10. Learned Claims Tribunal taking note of aforementioned provisions has
further recorded that the appellant/Insurance Company could not be
able to prove that at the time of accident, more than 20 persons were
being carried on the trolley attached to the tractor, which is based on
appreciation of evidence, hence cannot be said to be perverse. In the
aforementioned facts and the evidence available on record, as also
6
the Rule 97 of the Rules, 1994, learned Claims Tribunal has recorded
a finding that there was no breach of conditions of policy.
11. This Court in case of Kumbh Lal Patel & Ors. Vs. Jaggu Ram & Ors,
reported in 2018 1 CGLJ 250 has held as under :-
“14. The Division Bench of MP High Court in case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sarvanlal &
Ors.2004(4)MPHT 404 (DB) dealing with the similar issue
had dismissed the appeal of the insurance company. The
view of the Division Bench was based on an earlier
Division Bench decision of MP High Court in case of
Pushpa Devi & Ors. Vs. Kamal Singh & Ors. 2001(3)
MPLJ 548 wherein also it was held that once when it is
found that the deceased were travelling as members of
the marriage party in the tractor trolley which was being
used otherwise than for agriculture purpose for which it
was insured, the insurer is liable to pay compensation to
the claimants on account of clause 7 of Rule 97 of the
Rules, 1994. Similar view has also been taken by this
court in case of Bisun Singh & Anr. Vs. Ratni Devi & Anr.
(MAC No.657 of 2012 and another connected matter,
decided on 01.08.2017).
15. For the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the opinion
that the impugned award inasmuch as exonerating the
insurance companies was not proper, legal or justified.
The same deserves to be and is accordingly modified
holding that the amount of compensation shall be jointly
and severally payable by the owner, driver and the two
insurance companies which had insured the tractor as
well as trolley. The two insurance companies which had
insured the tractor and trolley shall equally share the
liability of payment of compensation to the claimants.”
7
12. In the aforementioned decision also, this Court has held that the
tractor trolley can be used for carrying 20 persons for the purpose of
marriage and in absence of proof of fact that at the time of accident,
the trolley was carrying more than 20 persons, the appellant/Insurance
Company cannot be exonerated from its liability to indemnify the
insured. Considering entirety of the facts and the evidence available
on record, the provisions of Rule 97 of the Rules, 1994 and the
decision of this Court in case of Kumbh Lal Patel (supra) I am of the
view that the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in
recording a finding that there was no breach of conditions of insurance
policy. Accordingly, the said finding is affirmed.
13. Second grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant that the
learned Claims Tribunal ought not to have awarded Rs.5,00,000/-
relying upon the amended provision, which came much after
happening of the accident is concerned, this issue has been settled by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Urmila Halder, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
4983 and held as under :-
“4. The short point for consideration before this Court is
whether the amendment in Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into effect by a Gazette
Notification on 22nd May, 2018, would relate to an accident
which had occurred prior to the said date.
10. The order of the High Court is well discussed and we
agree with the view taken. We may, however, add that a
beneficial legislation would necessarily entail the benefit to
be passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specific
bar to the same. In the present case, the liability of the
8appellant-Insurance Company has not been interfered with.
Only the computational mode and the modality have been
further clarified, which rightly has been noted by the High
Court and accordingly, the claim has been enhanced to Rs.
5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs). As 50% of the
compensation amount was stayed by this Court, the same
be paid to the respondent in terms of the impugned
judgment within eight weeks.”
14. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the said submission
of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is not
sustainable and I do not find any error in the impugned award of the
learned Claims Tribunal awarding Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimants on an
application under Section 163A of the Act, 1988 applying the amended
provisions, which came into force on 22.05.2018.
15. So far as the last submission of learned counsel for appellant that
application under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 is not maintainable is
also not sustainable in view of the decision in case of United India
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Another, reported in
(2019) 12 SCC 398. In the case at hand, the claim is against motor
accidental death of driver of offending vehicle, while he was driving the
vehicle. In the claim filed under Section 163-A, the negligence is not
required to be proved.
16. For the aforementioned discussions I do not find any merit in this
appeal and accordingly, the appeal being sans merit is liable to be and
is hereby dismissed.
9
17. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that he is
not pressing the cross-appeal filed. Accordingly, the cross-appeal filed
by the claimants is dismissed as not pressed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram