SYED ROSHAN

2025:CGHC:37893 ZAMIR ALI AFR Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ZAMIR ALI MAC No. 977 of 2020

1. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Manager , 1003, E-8, Rico Industrial Area , Sitapur, Jaipur (R.J.) 302022.

... Appellant versus

1. Munni Bai Wd/o Jhariram Aged About 45 Years 2. Ram Bahal S/o Jhariram Aged About 28 Years

3. Shyam Bahal S/o Jhariram Aged About 26 Years

4. Parmeshwar Ram S/o Jhariram Aged About 23 Years All respondents are R/o Village Hasuli, Tehsil Ambikapur , Thana Dhourpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

5. Samaylal Cherwa S/o Sonsai Cherwa Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Manjira, Thana Jainagar, District Surajpur (CG).

(Driver), 6. Arun Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Ramroop Jaiswal Aged About

45 Years R/o Colony Bouripara, Near Jaiswal Dharamshaala, Ambikapur, Thana & Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner), ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 4 : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate For Respondent No.5 & 6 : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order on Board

1/8/2025

1. Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the award dated 2.1.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.7/2019.

2. By the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,05,600/- to claimants for death of Jhariram, who succumbed to injuries sustained by him in road accident dated 1.5.2018, caused by Pick-up vehicle bearing registration mark UP64-H-8993 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that insurance company has filed this appeal challenging liability to pay amount of compensation fastened upon it, on the ground that insurance policy of offending vehicle covers the risk of driver, two coolies and one cleaner, whereas at the time of accident, the deceased was sitting in offending vehicle at the place, which is meant for carrying goods as a passenger and not in the capacity of coolie or cleaner and as such, the insurance company could not be held liable to indemnify the insured. He further submits that the driver or owner of offending vehicle has not produced any evidence showing that deceased was employed as coolie in offending vehicle. He further submitted that Prashant Bhomia (DW-1), Legal Officer of Insurance Company, stated in categorical terms that deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in offending vehicle. Thus, it is apparent that the offending vehicle was plied on road in breach of terms of insurance policy. However, the Claims Tribunal ignoring aforesaid facts has erroneously held that at the time of accident the deceased was not traveling as a passenger in the vehicle and was employed as a coolie. Hence, he prays to exonerate the insurance company from the liability to indemnify the insured.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents have supported the impugned award.

5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.

6. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal considering that at the time of accident, deceased was travelling in offending vehicle along with paddy seeds, evidence of Arun Kumar Jayaswal NAW-1), owner of vehicle, who specifically deposed that on the date of accident, deceased was travelling in offending vehicle as a coolie; and further considering that no material is placed by the insurance company to show that on the date of accident, deceased was travelling as paid passenger in offending vehicle, attracting breach of condition of insurance policy, arrived at a conclusion that insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured.

7. The question which arises for determination is whether the Claims Tribunal justified in holding that risk of decease