Chattisgarh High Court
Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company … vs Ramjeet Marabi on 15 July, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1 / 11
2025:CGHC:33000
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 499 of 2019
Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Legal Manager,
Office No. 403 4th Floor, DB, City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9
Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer).
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Ramjeet Marabi S/o Late Rameshwar, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village
Koti, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh Present Address -
Village Bhediya, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant )
2 - Ramlakhan Singh S/o Siroman Singh, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village
Koti, Post Mahewa, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh.
(Driver ).
3 - Mahboob Ahmad S/o Abdul Rajak, R/o Village And Post Pandri ( Kenwari)
Tahsil Wadrafnagar District Balrampur Chhattisgarh. (Owner).
--- Respondents
For Appellant : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Krishna Kant Prajapati on behalf of
Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
15/07/2025
1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging
the impugned award dated 07.12.2018, passed in Claim Case No.78
Digitally
signed by
BALRAM
of 2018, whereby the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims
BALRAM PRASAD
PRASAD DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.07.31
10:18:57
+0530
Tribunal, Pratappur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims
2 / 11Tribunal’) has awarded compensation of Rs.7,10,400/- to the claimants
in death case.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application
was filed by the applicant/claimant claiming compensation of
Rs.10,04,500/- as against the death of Indrawati, who died in the road
accident. It was pleaded that on 23.05.2018, Indravati went to the
house of Ramlakhan to do domestic work. After completing the work,
when she was returning home at about 9.45 am walking at that time
Non-applicant No.1, driving tractor bearing No. U.P. 64 R 6934, offered
Indravati a ride on the tractor as he was also proceeding towards the
house of Indravati. When they reached near Patiapara, due to rash
and negligent driving of the tractor it over turned. As a result of the
said accident, Indravati fell from the tractor, sustained serious bodily
injuries, and died on the spot. It was pleaded that the deceased was
the only daughter of the claimant and was working as a domestic
worker in various houses and was earning Rs. 4,500 per month.
3. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 filed their reply denying the averments made
in the claim application. It was pleaded that claim application was filed
on the false and fabricated grounds exaggerating the amount of
compensation. The vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3
and at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was holding valid and
effective driving license to drive the vehicle. It was pleaded that non-
applicant was driving the offending vehicle carefully and suddenly a
girl skitched trolley of tractor and later due to bursting of the tyre of the
tractor, steering failed and tractor over turned, due to which the girl
who was skitching on the rear trolley suffered injury.
3 / 11
4. Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply denying the averments made in
the application. It was pleaded that on the date of the accident, the
deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized
passenger. Offending vehicle was insured only for agricultural and
horticultural use, with coverage limited to the driver and no premium
was paid for additional passengers, as such, the risk of other person
was not covered. Non-applicant No.1 was not holding valid and
effective driving license and the offending vehicle was being plied in
breach of policy conditions without any fitness certificate. As there was
breach of conditions of insurance policy, non-applicant No.3 is not
liable to pay the amount of compensation.
5. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and
the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the
claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,10,400/-
and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.1 and 3 jointly and
severally.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit
that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in passing the impugned award
and fastening the liability upon appellant/Insurance Company, ignoring
the fact that deceased was travelling on the offending vehicle, which is
a goods carrying vehicle. It is contended that the offending vehicle was
insured only for agricultural and horticultural use, with coverage limited
to the driver and no premium was paid for additional passengers, as
such, risk of other person was not covered. It is further contended that
claimants have pleaded in the application that the deceased was
offered lift by the non-applicant No.1/Driver and the deceased was not
4 / 11
a labour engaged in the offending vehicle. It is contended that at the
time of accident, deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger,
therefore, her risk was not covered under the contractual liability. He
prays that the appellant/Insurance Company be exonerated from
indemnifying the insured.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimants opposes the
submission of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
and supports the impugned award. He submits that learned Claims
Tribunal upon appreciation of entire documentary and oral evidence
brought on record has passed the impugned award, which does not
call for any interference.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records
of the claim case.
9. The claimants in the claim application have specifically pleaded that
on the date of accident, when deceased was proceeding towards her
home after completing her household work, she was offered by non-
applicant No.1 to ride on the offending vehicle as he was also
proceeding towards the house of deceased and when they reached
near Patiapara, non-applicant No.1 drove the offending vehicle at a
high speed, in rash and negligent manner, due to which the tractor
over turned. As a result of the said accident, Indravati fell from the
tractor, sustained serious bodily injuries, and died on the spot.
10. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 have attempted to show in their evidence
that the accident did not occur due to negligence on the part of the
non-applicant No.1. Non-applicant No.1 was unaware of the
5 / 11
deceased, Indravati skitching the tractor. They claimed that Indravati
suffered injuries of her own negligence when the trolley overturned,
leading to her death.
11. However, eyewitness Ajay Kumar (A.W.2) clearly stated that
deceased- Indravati ran and sat on the tractor, and non-applicant No.1
while driving the tractor rashly and at high speed, over turned the
tractor. Deceased suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. In cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion of witnessing accident.
12. Copy of registration certificate of the offending vehicle is placed on
record as (Ex.D-1C) and perusal of the same would show that class of
vehicle is mentioned as Tractor (Agriculture) and there is no sitting
capacity on the tractor except for the driver. Copy of insurance policy
is filed as Ex.D-3. Perusal of the policy would show that it was insured
only for agricultural and forestry purposes.
13. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company has examined Himanshu,
Law Officer, as NAW.-3, who in his evidence stated that the tractor
bearing No. U.P. 64 R 6934 was insured under a Commercial Vehicle
Package Policy in the name of Shri Mehboob Ahmed for the period
13.10.2017 to 12.10.2018, limited to agricultural and forestry use. The
policy included coverage only for the driver’s personal accident risk.
He further stated that at the time of the accident, the deceased was
unauthorizedly traveling on the tractor engine. As no premium was
paid for any passenger other than the driver, the insurance company is
not liable for compensation. He further stated that at the time of
accident the vehicle was used in breach of conditions of insurance
policy.
6 / 11
14. From the evidence discussed above, it is clearly established that on
the date of the accident, the deceased, Indravati, was traveling on the
offending tractor as a gratuitous passenger. Non-applicant No.2 has
placed on record a copy of the registration certificate of the tractor,
which reflects that the seating capacity of the vehicle is limited to one
person only i.e. the driver. Additionally, a cover note and insurance
policy were filed to demonstrate the nature and extent of insurance
coverage, including the specific heads under which the premium was
paid. In such circumstances, it becomes the duty of the Tribunal to
carefully examine whether the insurance policy covered any risk
associated with carrying passengers on the tractor, particularly
persons other than the owner-driver or a paid driver. In absence of any
premium paid towards coverage of passengers or third-party risks
involving unauthorized occupants, it must be determined whether the
insurance company can be held liable.
15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company
Limited v. Brij Mohan and others reported in (2007) 7 SCC 56
has considered the issue with regard to persons traveling on tractor
trolley and held in para 10 and 12 thus: –
“10. Furthermore, the respondent was not the owner of
the tractor. He was also not the driver thereof. He was
merely a passenger travelling on the trolley attached to
the tractor. His claim petition, therefore, could not have
been allowed in view of the decision of this Court in New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2003) 2 SCC 223 :
2003 SCC (Cri) 493] wherein the earlier decision of this
Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh
[(2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130] was overruled.
7 / 11
In Asha Rani [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha
Rani, (2003) 2 SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493] it was,
inter alia, held : (SCC p. 235, paras 25-27)“25. Section 147 of the 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes
compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily
injury to any passenger of ‘public service vehicle’.
Proviso appended thereto categorically states that
compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and
conductors of public service vehicle and employees
carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It does not
speak of any passenger in a ‘goods carriage’.
26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in
the 1988 Act vis-à-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the
opinion that the meaning of the words ‘any person’ must
also be attributed having regard to the context in which
they have been used i.e. ‘a third party’. Keeping in view
the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that
as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory
liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle
insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle,
the insurers would not be liable therefor.
27. Furthermore, sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 147 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, whereas sub-clause
(ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by
the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily
injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle
caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a
public place.”
8 / 11
(See also National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi
Subbhayamma [(2005) 12 SCC 243] and United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [(2006) 4 SCC 404 :
(2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 344] .)
12. Interpretation of the contracts of insurance in terms
of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act came
up for consideration recently before a Division Bench of
this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain
Dhut [(2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142 :
(2007) 4 Scale 36] wherein it was held : (SCC p. 714,
paras 23-24)“23[24]. As noted above, there is no contractual
relation between the third party and the insurer.
Because of the statutory intervention in terms of
Section 149, the same becomes operative in
essence and Section 149 provides complete
insulation.
24[25]. In the background of the statutory provisions,
one thing is crystal clear i.e. the statute is beneficial
one qua the third party. But that benefit cannot be
extended to the owner of the offending vehicle. The
logic of fake licence has to be considered differently
in respect of the third party and in respect of own
damage claims.”
It was further observed : (SCC pp. 718-19, paras 33-
35)
“33[36]. It is also well settled that to arrive at the
intention of the legislation depending on the objects
for which the enactment is made, the court can
resort to historical, contextual and purposive
interpretation leaving textual interpretation aside.
9 / 11
34[37]. Francis Bennion in his book Statutory
Interpretation described ‘purposive interpretation’ as
under:
‘A purposive construction of an enactment is one
which gives effect to the legislative purpose by–
(a) following the literal meaning of the enactment
where that meaning is in accordance with the
legislative purpose, or
(b) applying a strained meaning where the literal
meaning is not in accordance with the legislative
purpose.’35[38]. More often than not, literal interpretation of a
statute or a provision of a statute results in absurdity.
Therefore, while interpreting statutory provisions, the
courts should keep in mind the objectives or purpose
for which statute has been enacted. Justice
Frankfurter of US Supreme Court in an article titled
as ‘Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes’ (47
Columbia Law Review 527), observed that,
‘legislation has an aim, it seeks to obviate some
mischief, to supply an adequacy, to effect a
change of policy, to formulate a plan of
Government. That aim, that policy is not drawn,
like nitrogen, out of the air; it is evidenced in the
language of the statutes, as read in the light of
other external manifestations of purpose.’ ”
(See also Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena
Variyal [(2007) 5 SCC 428 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri)
527 : (2007) 5 Scale 269] .)
16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shivaraj v. Rajendra and Anr.
reported in (2018) 10 SCC 432 has held thus:
10 / 11
“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.”
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the deceased was
traveling on the offending vehicle and was not covered under the
insurance policy purchased by the owner. The insurance policy did not
provide coverage for any unauthorized passengers, and no premium
was paid for such risk and in light of the above decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal
that breach of policy condition was not proved and hence,
appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation is
unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The liability to
satisfy the award shall now rest solely with Non-applicant No.2, owner
of the offending vehicle.
18. However, considering the fact that the claimants are poor person and
appellant/Insurance Company though issued the insurance policy has
been exonerated from its liability on the ground of breach of conditions
of insurance policy and further 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
11 / 11
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
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
from owner of offending vehicle as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan, (2004) 13
SCC 224 in same execution proceeding. Rest of the conditions of the
impugned award shall remain intact.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram