Chattisgarh High Court
I F F C O Tokio General Insurance Company … vs Laxman Prasad Tiwari on 30 July, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:37248
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 445 of 2021
1 - I F F C O Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Through - Local
Branch Office, Vyapar Vihar, Sanjay Apartment, Bilaspur (C.G.) Having Its
Raipur Office 205, 2nd Floor, M.M. Silver Plaza, In Front Of Udyog Bhawan,
Near Mining Office, Ring Road No.1, Raipur, District - Raipur - Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellants
versus
1 - Laxman Prasad Tiwari S/o Nanhe Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 32 Years
2 - Usha Bai Tiwari W/o Laxman Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 30 Years
Both are R/o Village Manjgaon, Police Station And Tahsil - Lormi, District -
Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Claimants),
3 - Kartik Yadav S/o Goverdhan Yadav, Aged About 26 Years R/o Manjgaon,
Police Station And Tahsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Driver),
4 - Ghanaram Lahare S/o Gangu Lahare, Aged About 50 Years R/o
Khamhariya, Tahsil - Mungeli, Police Station - Jarhagaon, District - Mungeli
Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Trolley)
5 - Ghunesh Yadav S/o Ajitram Yadav R/o Khamhariya, Tahsil - Mungeli,
Police Station - Jarhagaon, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate along with
Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents : None present though served.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
30/07/2025
1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173
Digitally
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging
signed by
BALRAM
BALRAM PRASAD
PRASAD DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.08.12
11:23:28
+0530
2the impugned award dated 26.03.2021, passed in Claim Case No.29
of 2019, whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) has
awarded compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- to the claimants in death
case.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application
was filed by the applicants/claimants claiming compensation of
Rs.12,00,000/- against the death of Chhatrapal who died in motor
accident. It was pleaded that on 27.05.2018, at around 8:30 a.m., Non-
Applicant No.1 was driving a tractor-trolley from Majgaon to Lormi. At
the same time, Miss Gamini Yadav, Dishu, Bittu, and Nikku were
boarding the tractor-trolley. Chhatrapal also attempted to climb onto
the vehicle. However, due to rash and negligent driving by non-
applicant No.1/driver, Chhatrapal sustained serious injuries to his
thigh, abdomen, and right hip. He was immediately admitted to the
hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries during the course of
treatment. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased
Chhatrapal was student of Class- 4th, he was a very intelligent boy and
would have occupied higher position in future but due to untimely
death of their son, claimant suffered irreparable loss.
3. Non-applicant No.2 did not file any reply to the claim application. Non-
applicant No.1 and 3 filed reply to the application, denying the
averments made therein. It was placed that neither the deceased was
dashed by offending vehicle nor the offending vehicle was driven in
breach of policy conditions. Claim application was filed exaggerating
3
the amount of compensation. The offending vehicle was insured with
non-applicant No.4.
4. Non-applicant No.4 also filed its reply to the application denying the
averments therein. It was pleaded that the offending vehicle was being
driven in breach of policy conditions. The trolley was not insured with
the non-applicant No.4, therefore, he is not liable to pay any
compensation.
5. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and
evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim
application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.04,80,000/- and
fastened liability upon non-applicants jointly and severally upon driver,
owner of tractor, owner of tractor trolley and insurer of tractor (non-
applicant No.4) to satisfy the amount of compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that
learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the
appellant/Insurance Company, who is insurer of the tractor, however,
the deceased met with an accident while boarding on trolley. The
owner of tractor and trolley are different persons and as per
requirements both the tractor and trolley are to be separately insured.
As the accident was not with the tractor, learned Claims Tribunal erred
in fastening liability to satisfy the amount of compensation on the
appellant/Insurance Company also jointly and severally.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
records of the claim case.
4
8. Perusal of the pleadings of the claim case would show that when the
deceased Chhatrapal was trying to climb on trolley, non-applicant
No.1/driver of the tractor drove the tractor attached with trolley rashly
and negligently due to which, deceased fell down and and tractor
trolley ran over him. He suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to
the injuries. To prove the pleadings made in the claim application,
claimants submitted the documents prepared by the police in criminal
case, like FIR (Ex.P-2), Final Report (Ex.P-1). In the FIR (Ex.P-2) also
similar allegation have been levelled against driver of tractor trolley.
Charge-sheet has been filed against non-applicant No.1 for offence
U/s. 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 146/196 of the
Motor Vehicle Act. Claimants have examined Laxman Prasad Tiwari as
(A.W.-1), father of deceased. In his evidence, he stated that he had
been informed by friend of the deceased Chhatrapal namely Gamini
Yadav, Dishu, Bittu and Nikku that his son died in accident with tractor.
Non-applicant No.3 examined one Manish Sahu as (NAW.3-1) he in
his evidence, admitted that tractor was insured by non-applicant
No.3/Insurance Company for a period from 22.09.2017 to 21.09.2018
and the deceased to be third party. He also admitted that trolley runs
only after attaching with the tractor. From the aforementioned
documentary and oral evidence available on record, it is apparent that
deceased while trying to board the stationary tractor trolley, driver of
the tractor trolley drove the vehicle suddenly, in a rash and negligent
manner due to which Chhatrapal met with accident.
5
9. Division Bench of this Court in case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Kushal Salma & Ors., reported in (2011) 2 CGLJ 243 has
observed in para 11 and 13 thus :-
“11. A tractor fitted with a trailer (trolley) may or may not
answer the definition of goods carriage contained in Section
2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The trailer attached
to the tractor necessarily is required to be used for
agricultural purpose unless registered otherwise. Tractor
and trolley are registered separately and are having
separate registration number with R.T.O. The tractor was
insured by the Appellant/insurance company whereas the
trolley was insured by Respondent No. 4/Oriental Insurance
Company. Policy has been issued by Oriental Insurance
Company in Form 51 of the Central Motor Vehicle, 1988.
The Oriental Insurance Company has issued policy in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter X and XI of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When trailer (trolley) is attached
with tractor, then in our opinion, it becomes one vehicle. Of
course, one driver will drive the tractor as well as the trolley
and if the tractor and trolley both are involved in the
accident, then the owner of both the vehicles may be held
liable for the tort committed by the tractor driver and both
the companies issuing policies separately, one covering risk
of tractor and other covering risk of trailer, may be held
liable jointly and severally. It is not correct to say that
although the insurance company has insured the trolley
under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but they
are not liable to indemnify the insured.
13. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, both the
owners i.e. owner of the tractor and the trailer (trolley) and
insurers’ are jointly and severely liable for payment of
compensation to the claimants. The appeal is allowed in
part. The Respondent No. 3 and 4 are also held liable
6jointly and severely along with the Appellant for payment of
compensation to the claimants.”
10. For the foregoing discussion and in light of the decision of Division
Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in arriving at the
conclusion that non-applicants driver, owner of tractor, trolley and non-
applicant No.4, insurer of tractor are jointly and severally liable to pay
the amount of compensation. The findings recorded by the Claims
Tribunal in this regard are well-founded.
11. Accordingly, the appeal being sans merit is liable to be and it is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram
[ad_1]
Source link