Chattisgarh High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company … vs Kadam Kunwar on 24 June, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:27467
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 923 of 2019
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Registered Office, Iffco Sadan,
C-1, District Center, Saket, New Delhi 17. ---(Insurer Of Tata 407 Cg 16 A
1989), District : New Delhi, Delhi
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Kadam Kunwar W/o Late Veer Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Village
Pali, Thana - Pasan, District Korba Chhattisgarh. -
2 - Phool Kumar S/o Late Veer Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Pali,
Thana - Pasan, District Korba Chhattisgarh. -
3 - Raj Kumar S/o Late Veer Singh Aged About 9 Years R/o Village Pali,
Thana - Pasan, District Korba Chhattisgarh. Minor Through Natural Guardian
(Mother) Kadam Kunwar , Res. No.1
4 - Uma Shankar Yadav S/o Makhan Lal Yadav Village Lamer, Thana Kota,
District Bilaspur Chhattisarh.
5 - Brijesh Patel S/o Tulsidas Patel Ward No. 32, Near Masjid, Juna Main
Road, Bilaspur Chhattisarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate
For Respondents No.5. : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
24/06/2025
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
BALRAM
Digitally
signed by
impugned award dated 07.02.2019, passed in MACT No. 5/2018,
PRASAD BALRAM
DEWANGAN PRASAD
DEWANGAN
whereby the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims
2
Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.7,04,200/- in a death
case.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application
U/s. 166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants claiming total
compensation of Rs.54,20,000/- under different heads against the
death of Veer Singh, who died in the road accident pleading that, on
03/09/2017 at about 1.00 pm, Veer Singh was coming from Bilaspur to
Manendragarh in a truck (407 model) number-CG-16-A-1989, when
reached near village-Bodemuda, Parsa Bodra turn, non-applicant
number-1, while driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner, hit
the mountain on the side of the road, due to which Veer Singh suffered
injuries on his face and head and died on the spot. It was pleaded that
Veer Singh was a 45-year-old man at the time of the incident and was
earning Rs. 12,000/- per month by doing work of tailoring, agriculture
and milk production.
3. Non-applicant Nos.1 & 2 submitted reply and while resisting the claim
it was pleaded that the claim application was filed exaggerating the
amount of compensation. No accident had occurred with the offending
vehicle. The offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant
No.3. Non-applicant No.3 in its reply pleaded that on the date of
accident, non-applicant No. 1 did not possess a valid and effective
driving licence to drive 407 model truck, which is classified as a goods
vehicle. It was further alleged that the truck was carrying 6-7
passengers, including the deceased, which is clear violation of the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance
company is not liable to pay compensation.
3
4. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence
placed on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in
part and awarded total compensation of Rs.7,04,200/- fastened the
liability upon the Insurance Company to satisfy the award.
5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the appellant/Insurance
Company has filed this appeal challenging the impugned award
passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and fixing the liability to pay
amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company. He contended
that the insurance of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. The
appellant/Insurance Company in its reply has raised two major
grounds along with others that on the date of accident, the driver of the
offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving
license, because on the date of accident, driver was possessing the
license only to drive the light motor vehicle, whereas the vehicle
involved in the accident is Tata 407 goods vehicle. There is no
endorsement in the license of driver of the offending vehicle (transport
vehicle) authorizing him to drive transport vehicle. He next contended
that policy was issued covering the risk of third party and owner-cum-
driver and driver of the vehicle, except this under the policy the risk of
other person is not covered. The deceased on the date of accident
was traveling as a gratuitous passenger and as the risk of deceased
was not covered under the policy, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in
fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company to satisfy the
amount of compensation erroneously recording a finding that the
deceased was traveling as labourer along with the goods. He also
pointed out that in the pleadings, nature of occupation of the deceased
4
is mentioned as tailoring and agricultural work, however, in the
evidence averment has been made before the learned Claims Tribunal
that he was also doing the work of electrician and according to the
directions of the contractor, deceased was traveling in the vehicle. The
said finding is perverse to the pleading in the claim application and the
evidence available on record. He prays for exoneration of the
Insurance Company from satisfying the amount of compensation.
6. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 vehemently opposes the
submission of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly
appreciated the evidence available on record and recorded a finding
that the deceased was traveling as labour along with loaded goods. As
the insurance policy is package policy, therefore, the risk of the
persons/occupants of permissible limit as mentioned in the registration
book are automatically covered. He also submits that the learned
Claims Tribunal considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 has rightly came to the
conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle while possessing the
license to drive the light motor vehicle is also authorize to drive the
transport vehicle having its laden weight below 7500 kg.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
8. The claimants have filed the application U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.54,20,000/-. In the
application, occupation of the deceased is mentioned as tailoring,
5
agricultural and milk production. Income is shown to Rs.12,000/- per
month. Though the claimants have mentioned the nature of all the
works and occupation of deceased like tailoring, agricultural, milk
production, however, there is no specific mention of the work of
electrician for the purpose of earning his livelihood.
9. In the claim application in para 10, it is mentioned that at the time of
accident, deceased was traveling on the offending vehicle and going
to Manendragarh from Bilaspur. In the said column, it is not mentioned
in what capacity, the deceased was traveling in the vehicle. Admittedly
the vehicle on which the deceased was travelling was Tata 407 goods
carrying vehicle. In para -22 of the application it is also mentioned that
on 03.09.2017 at about 1.00 PM, deceased was traveling on Tata 407
bearing No. C.G. 16-A-1989. In this para also there is no specific
mention that the deceased was traveling as labourrer along with the
goods. The accident is dated 03.9.2017 and the report is lodged in the
police station on the same day at about 3.00 pm by Soraspal. In the
FIR it is mentioned that deceased was working as labourer with
contractor engaged in doing the work of electrical. At the instance of
the contractor, they came to Bilaspur to take the electric cable wire
from Bilaspur to Manendragarh. In the mourge intimation also same
fact has been mentioned. Veer Singh is travelling in the cabin by the
side of the driver and other persons were traveling on the platform of
the vehicle. The vehicle met with an accident in which Veer Singh
suffered grievous injuries over his head, face and succumbed to the
injuries on the spot.
6
10. Phool Kumar (Claimants No.2) is examined as A.W.-1. He stated that
his father was coming to Manendragarh from Bilaspur in connection
with work of Satish electrical contractor and at the relevant time,
vehicle met with an accident. There is no mention as to which place
deceased was sitting in the vehicle at the time of accident. Similar
statement is made by Sirash Pal (AW-2). Copy of permit is available in
record. Number of vehicle is mentioned as CG 16 A 1989 and the type
of make, modal, and body is mentioned as LGV light goods vehicle.
The laden weight is mentioned as 2200 and unladen weight is
mentioned as 2250. Gross vehicle weight is mentioned as 4450. In the
aforementioned facts of the case to appreciate the submission of
learned counsel for appellant that on the date of accident, the driver of
the offending vehicle was not possessed with effective driving license,
perusal of the record would show that the copy of license of Uma
Shankar Yadav is also available on record which is issued authorizing
him to drive light motor vehicle and motor cycle with gear. The date of
issue is 25.07.2007 and is valid up till 24.07.2027. From the
aforementioned facts it is appearing that on the date of accident the
driver of the vehicle was possessing the license to drive light motor
vehicle and motor cycle with gear with validity date upto 24.07.2027.
The accident occurred on 03.09.2017. The issue with regard to drive
light goods vehicle by person holding light motor vehicle came for
consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mukund
Dewangan (supra) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the
law has held as under :-
“60. Thus, we answer the questions which are referred to
us thus:
7
60.1. “Light motor vehicle” as defined in Section 2(21) of
the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight
prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and
2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the
definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment
Act 54 of 1994.
60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle
weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would
be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a
roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed
7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of
“light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)( d) is
competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the
gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or
a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of
which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no
separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a
transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as
enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)
(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994
and 28-3-2001 in the form.
60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act
54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994 while substituting clauses ( e)
to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained “medium goods
vehicle” in Section 10(2)(e), “medium passenger motor
vehicle” in Section 10(2)(f), “heavy goods vehicle” in
Section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in
Section 10(2)(h) with expression “transport vehicle” as
substituted in Section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid
substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport
vehicle, from the purview of Section 10(2)(d) and Section
2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
60.4. The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of
“transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which
were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to
obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light
motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has
not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain
separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a
driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can
drive transport vehicle of such class without any
endorsement to that effect.”
8
11. In the aforementioned decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that persons possessing the license to drive light motor vehicle can
also drive the transport vehicle of such class without any
endorsement, in the opinion of this Court, the learned claims Tribunal
has correctly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having
the valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle which is a
light goods vehicle. Accordingly, the said finding is hereby affirmed.
12. So far as the second grounds raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the deceased on the date of accident was traveling as
gratuitous passenger is concerned, in the claim application though
there is no such pleading that the deceased was traveling as a
labourer, however, in the FIR, which is lodged immediately after the
accident, it is mentioned that the deceased was traveling as a labourer
in the offending vehicle. The FIR also mentions that the deceased was
traveling in the cabin and sitting by the side of the driver of the vehicle.
The report is promptly lodged, hence, the facts mentioned therein with
respect to the status of the deceased traveling in the vehicle as
labourer and the place of sitting, cannot be suspected.
13. Perusal of the policy Ex.P-5 would show that the policy was effective
for period from 07.05.2017 till 06.05.2018. It covers the risk of the
personal accident of owner driver, legal liability to driver under IMT-28.
No other risk is covered in the policy even of the employee or the
labourer engaged in the vehicle. .
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC
223, considered the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the
9
insured where the owner or authorized representative of owner of the
goods is traveling in the goods vehicle and suffered injury and held as
under :-
“9……….The objects and reasons of clause 46 also state
that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include owner of the
goods or his authorised representative carried in the
vehicle for the purposes of liability under the insurance
policy. It is no doubt true that sometimes the legislature
amends the law by way of amplification and clarification of
an inherent position which is there in the statute, but a
plain meaning being given to the words used in the statute,
as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994, and as it stands
subsequent to its amendment in 1994 and bearing in mind
the objects and reasons engrafted in the amended
provisions referred to earlier, it is difficult for us to construe
that the expression “including owner of the goods or his
authorised representative carried in the vehicle” which was
added to the pre-existing expression “injury to any person”
is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre-existing
statute. On the other hand it clearly demonstrates that the
legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147
and making it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in
case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his
authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle
when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of
the goods or his representative either dies or suffers bodily
injury. The judgment of this Court in Satpal case [New
India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh, (2000) 1 SCC 237 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 130] therefore must be held to have not
been correctly decided and the impugned judgment of the
Tribunal as well as that of the High Court accordingly are
set aside and these appeals are allowed. It is held that the
insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the
owner of the goods or his authorised representative on
being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets
with an accident and the owner of the goods or his
representative dies or suffers any bodily injury.”
15. In case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaurm,
reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon
its earlier decision in case of Asha Rani (supra) has held thus :-
10
“19. In Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri)
493] it has been noticed that sub-clause ( i) of clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the 1988 Act speaks of
liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in
respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or
damage to any property of a third party caused by or
arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.
Furthermore, an owner of a passenger-carrying vehicle
must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers
travelling in the vehicle. The premium in view of the 1994
amendment would only cover a third party as also the
owner of the goods or his authorised representative and
not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for
hire or reward or otherwise.
20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment
of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section
147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the
goods or his authorized representative remains the same.
Although the owner of the goods or his authorized
representative would now be covered by the policy of
insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the
intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the
insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous
passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time
the contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any
premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to
such category of people.
21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that
instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle
shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question,
however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact
that the law was not clear so long such a direction would
be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore,
clarify the legal position which shall have prospective
effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded
in terms of the decision of this Court in Satpal Singh
[(2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130] . The said
decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani [(2003) 2
SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493] . We, therefore, are of the
opinion that the interest of justice will be subserved if the
appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount
in favour of the claimant, if not already satisfied, and
recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the
purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for
the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a
11proceeding before the executing court as if the dispute
between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter
of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is
decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We
have issued the aforementioned directions having regard
to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, in terms whereof, it is not only entitled
to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the
claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or
driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute
between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or
driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as
can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a proceeding.”
16. In view of the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and considering the fact that the deceased at the time of accident was
traveling in the goods vehicle and further considering that the owner of
the vehicle has not paid any premium with respect to labourer, hence,
in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording
a finding that deceased was travelling as labourer and therefore, his
risk is covered under the policy, is not sustainable and accordingly it is
set-aside. Now it is the owner/Respondent No.5 of the vehicle who will
be liable to satisfy the amount of compensation computed and
awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal against the death of the
deceased. The appellant/Insurance Company is exonerated from the
liability to satisfy the amount of compensation awarded by the learned
Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.
17. However, in the facts of the case taking note of the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kr. Singh,
(2017) 4 SCC 796 as also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of Shivraj Vs. Rajendra & Another, reported in (2018) 10 SCC
432, Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, the Insurance Company/appellant is
12
directed to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter to
recover the same from owner of the vehicle. It is made clear that the
Insurance Company can recover the amount of compensation so paid
as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan, (2004) 13 SCC 224.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram