Digitally signed

2026:CGHC:8918 by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 202 6.02.24 NAFR

14:57:14 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 76 of 2024 * - Branch Manager (Insurance Company) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Office Ground Floor, Vanijya Bhavan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.),(Non-Applicant No. 3)

... Appellant Versus

1 - Dhanwanti Yadav W/o Late Vinay Kumar Aged About 48 Years (Wife Of Deceased), R/o Gram Dhondha, Thana And Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.)

2 - Sunil Kumar Yadav S/o Late Vinay Kumar Aged About 30 Years (Son Of Deceased). R/o Gram Dhondha, Thana And Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.)

3 - Sujeet Kumar Yadav S/o Late Vinay Kumar Aged About 26 Years (Son Of Deceased). R/o Gram Dhondha, Thana And Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.)

4 - Ramkewal Yadav S/o Babulal Aged About 70 Years (Father Of Deceased).

R/o Gram Dhondha, Thana And Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.)

5 - Heera Kuwar W/o Shri Ramkewal Aged About 65 Years (Mother Of Deceased). R/o Gram Dhondha, Thana And Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.), ...(Claimants)

6 - Kamalram Sahu S/o Shri Bhagwandas Sahu Aged About 35 Years (Driver), R/o Navatola, Tehsil - Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.)

7 - Gorelal Sahu S/o Shri Bahgwandas Sahu (Owner Of The Vehicle), R/o Navatola, Tehsil - Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.)

... Respondents For Appellant / Insurance : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate Company holding the brief of Mr. Shekhar Rao Saheb Amin, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 / : Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Advocate holding Claimants the brief of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondents No. 6 and 7 : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

19/02/2026

1. The appellant/insurance company has filed this appeal against the award dated 28.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur in Claim Case No.56/2021, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 34,24,837/- to the claimants with a direction to the insurance company to indemnify the award first and thereafter recover it from driver and owner.

2. Brief facts are that on 23.05.2021, the deceased, Vinay Kumar Yadav was going towards Village Navatola as a pillion rider on a motorcycle belonging to respondent No.7, bearing registration UP-64-AK-2506. The rider of the offending vehicle, by driving it rashly and negligently, collided with a buffalo, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died during the course of treatment.

3. The claimants filed Claim Case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Claims Tribunal claiming Rs. 42,92,222/- as compensation. The driver, owner, and Insurance Company filed reply denying the claim averments. Issues were framed, evidence was led by the parties, and thereafter the impugned award was passed. The learned Tribunal fastened liability on the driver and owner, and directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the award first and thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned award is contrary to law facts on record, and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He would further submit that the the Insurance policy pertaining the offending vehicle was a “Liability Only Policy” (Act Only Policy), and the deceased was a pillion rider. No additional premium was paid to cover the risk of a pillion rider, therefore, the deceased does not fall within the category of a third party covered under the said insurance policy. He would argue that in the absence of payment of extra premium for covering the risk of a pillion rider, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability to indemnify the award.

He would contend that the direction compelling the Insurance Company to pay compensation is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, particularly in view of the policy being an Act Only policy and