Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24348
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
United India Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jabbo – Respondent
MAC No. 383 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Swapnil Thawaney, P.R. Patankar
For the Respondents: None
The insurance company is liable for compensation when evidence, specifically eye-witness testimony, proves the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger but a third party hit by the vehicle due to the driver's negligence.
Headnote:(A) Motor Accident Claims - Liability of Insurance Company - Gratuitous Passenger - Where the testimony of an eye-witness establishes that the deceased was not a passenger in the vehicle but was hit by it while standing nearby, the insurance company cannot evade liability by claiming the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle or a third party hit by the vehicle.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against compensation award and appellant's contention regarding gratuitous passenger status. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. evaluation of eye-witness testimony to determine the deceased's position and liability. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. dismissal of the appeal based on the findings of the claims tribunal. (Para 6) |
Judgment on Board
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 06/11/2019 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 69/2017 whereby compensation of Rs. 6,35,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of the accident, deceased was sitting in the Tractor as a gratuitous passenger, as such, Insurance Company would not be liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants.
3. None appeared on behalf of the respondents though served.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submissions and perused the record.
5. A careful perusal of the record would show that Dasso Poyami (P.W.-2) was admittedly eye-witness of the incident and he has clearly stated before the Tribunal that deceased was not sitting on the Tractor and he was rather standing near brick furnace, where he used to work, when respondent No. 2 herein i.e. Driver of the offending vehicle, drove the Tractor in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which he died on the spot. Despite being subjected to cross-examination, eye-witness Dasso Poyami (PW-2) has maintained his version, which has rightly been believed by the Claims Tribunal. As such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that deceased was not sitting on the Tractor as a gratuitous passenger on the basis of the statement of eye-witness Dasso Poyami (PW-2) and fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Company. I do not find any merit in this appeal.
6. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).
