2025:BHC-NAG:14816

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

FIRST APPEAL NO. 26/2020

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Through its Branch Manager,

Ambar, Plot No.22-B,

Near Tilak Nagar Ground,

Tilak Nagar, Nagpur.

... APPELLANT

...VERSUS…

1. Sau. Kalpana W/o Madhukar Soyam,

Aged about 59 yrs, Occ.: Household,

2. Ku. Shital D/o Madhukar Soyam,

Aged about 25 yrs., Occ.: Education

3. Madhukar S/o Vishwanath Soyam,

Aged about 64 yrs., OCC. Labourer,

All R/o Nandgur, Tah. & Distt. Chandrapur.

4. Gulam Ahamad Rabbani,

Aged about 64 yrs., Occ.: Owner of

offending vehicle, R/o: Ramnagar Ward No.1, Bori, B.O. Gadchiroli.

...RESPONDENTS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms Mrunal Naik, Advocate for appellant

Shri S.W. Sambre, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3

Shri A.R. Wagh, Advocate for respondent No.4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : PRAVIN S . PATIL , J .

DATED : 1 7 .1 2 .2025

ORAL JUDGMENT . Heard.

2. By way of present appeal, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 26.06.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur in MACT No.128/2014. The appellant herein is the Insurance Company who has raised a grievance that learned Tribunal has committed an error in issuing directions of ‘pay and recover’ in the matter, which is not just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Before the Claims Tribunal, the case of the claimant was that the deceased Sachin along with one Vikas was proceeding from village Nandgur towards Chandrapur for attending labour work. Both of them were waiting for a bus at Nandgur at around 6 a.m., at that time, the goods vehicle Matador bearing registration No. MH 33/G–1172 came from Gadchiroli and the deceased has boarded in the said vehicle which was for Goods Vehicle. After boarding of the deceased in the vehicle, the accident was occurred. Vikas who was accompanied with the deceased and travelling in the bus, after he alighted from the bus, he got knowledge that deceased was seriously injured in the said accident as the injury was caused to his head. Accordingly, deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Chandrapur, where he was succumbed to his injuries. Accordingly, the offence was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle vide Crime No.211/2014, on 04.07.2014 at Police Station, Ram Nagar, Chandrapur.

4. The respondents claimants who are the dependents of the deceased filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal and thereby claimed the compensation of Rs.1 Lakh.

5. The said petition was contested by the respondents. According to the respondents, the deceased was solely responsible in the matter as he was not expected to travel as a gratuitous passenger in a Goods Vehicle. Therefore, the person who was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the Goods Vehicle as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Insurance Company is not responsible to pay the compensation in such cases.

6. Learned Tribunal in light of the submissions made by the parties has considered the submission raised by the appellant Company and held that though it is well settled position of law that for a gratuitous passenger in Goods Vehicle, the Insurance Company is not responsible, however the Company cannot be absolved from his responsibility to satisfy the decree and recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, claim petition was decided and the claimants were held to be entitled for the compensation of Rs.9,66,000/- towards the compensation and appellant Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the compensation and then recover from the owner of the vehicle.

7. In the present appeal, the only ground raised by the appellant is that the order of pay and recover was not proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the appellant, it was the case of claimants that deceased, who was waiting for a bus at Na