Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 6501
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Babu Ramlu Maadi – Respondent
MAC No. 1045 of 2018 | Claim Case No. H-30/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Animesh Pathak, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate
Insurance companies are liable for accidents involving insured vehicles, even if attached components are not separately insured.
Headnote:This judgment arises from an appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 against an award of compensation amounting to Rs. 5,02,000/- to the claimants, found to be due to the negligence of the vehicle's driver,. Pedestrian Ganesh Babu Mani died from injuries caused by a collision. The court noted the failure of the insurance company to prove lack of liability due to allegations of uninsurable components involved in the accident. The main issue was whether the insurance company could evade liability based on its claim regarding the uninsurance of a trolley involved in the accident. The court framed the question additionally considering the doctrine of vicarious liability, concluding insurance coverage extends to attached vehicles in motion. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the liability of the insurance company as the motor vehicle policy covered the incident.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis of appeal validity and compensation awarded. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. circumstance of liability due to driver's negligence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. argument about the uninsurance of the trolley. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court precedent on insurance covering combined vehicles. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's dismissal of the appeal maintaining tribunal's award. (Para 11 , 12) |
C.A.V. Judgment
1. The present appeal is directed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 by the insurance company against the award dated 07.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara (C.G.) in Claim Case No. H-30/2014, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,02,000/- in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 herein.
2. As against the compensation of Rs.21,62,369/- claimed by the unfortunate parents (respondents No. 1 & 2 herein) of deceased – Ganesh Babu Mani by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for his death in the motor accident on 26.04.2014, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,02,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment.
3. In the award in question, the Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to the negligence and rashness of the driver Jiwan Prasad Miri (respondent No. 4) of the offending vehicle i.e. tractor-trolley, in which Ganesh Babu Mani, who was riding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle, died due to head injury due to the collision. The offending vehicle tractor was insured by the appellant/insurance company, whose insurance policy is Ex.D-1; no violation of the policy was found to be proved, hence the owner Upendra Jaiswal (respondent No. 3) and the driver Jiwan Prasad Miri (respondent No. 4) of the tractor as well as the appellant/insurance company were held liable for payment of compensation, which has been challenged in the appeal by the appellant/insurance company.
4. From the evidence presented by both the parties, it is clear that the registered owner of both the tractor and the trolley was Upendra Jaiswal (respondent No. 3). At the time of the accident, the tractor was insured with the appellant whose policy is Ex.D-1, but the trolley did not have any separate insurance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the deceased Ganesh Babu Mani suffered a head injury by the trolley, which has been admitted by the motorcyclist Rahul Sonane (AW-2) as a witness to the scene. In such a situation, since the injury was caused by a collision with the trolley and the trolley was not insured, the appellant/insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. Hence, the appellant/insurance company is liable to be exonerated from its liability of payment of compensation. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude Since Deceased Through His Lrs. & Ors. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725
6. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4, the registered owner and driver of the offending vehicle, submits that the appellant/insurance company has not made any pleading that the deceased was hit by the trolley and the trolley was not insured, hence they are not liable for payment of compensation. In this regard, no evidence has been presented by the appellant/insurance company. On the basis of the evidence of Rahul Sonane (AW-2), who was the motorcyclist, it cannot be conclusively believed that Ganesh Babu Mani died due to the collision with the trolley. It is further argued that the trolley is not a self-driven vehicle; it moves only after being attached to the tractor, and they have only one driver. In such a situation, even if the tractor is attached to the trolley, then due to moving together, the tractor and trolley can be seen as a single vehicle, and the tractor was insured; hence, there was no legal requirement to i
