AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MAC No. 490 of 2014

•

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Thru- its Authorized

Officer, Bajaj Allianz General Insu.Co.Ltd., Branch Office, Shiv Mohan

Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Distt. Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant

Versus

1. Itwara Bai, W/o Late Krishna Kumar Aged About 20 Years

2. Jai Kumar S/o Sheetal Prasad Aged About 45 Years

3. Budhwara Bai W/o Jai Kumar Aged About 40 Years

All r/o village-Seepat (Bus Stand) PS Seepat, Tehsil and District - Bilaspur

CG

4. Laxman Varma S/o Late Jorik Lal Varma Aged About 29 Years R/o

Seepat, Near Bus Stand, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

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

For Appellant

:

Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

For Respondents

:

None appears

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order on Board

15.02.2019

1.

Appellant/Insurance Company assailed the impugned award dated

03.02.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short,

'Claims Tribunal'), Bilaspur in Claim Case No.378 of 2009, wherein

learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,17,500/- as

compensation in a death case.

2.

Brief facts for disposal of this appeal are that on 28.06.2009

deceased Krishna Kumar was driving a tractor bearing No.CG10-A-5654

(offending vehicle) and was going towards Seepat. At that relevant time,

near Nargoda turning, one motor cycle suddenly came in front of his

mac 490 of 2014

2

tractor and while saving the motorcyclist from accident, tractor turned turtle

due to which Krishna Kumar died.

3.

The claimants who are unfortunate wife and parents of deceased

Krishna Kumar have filed claim application under Section 163-A of Motor

Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') claiming total sum of compensation

of Rs.8,08,000/- against the owner and insurer of offending vehicle. The

grounds mentioned in the claim application are that the deceased was

working as driver of tractor and on the date of accident he was earning

Rs.3,000/- per month. The claimants were dependant on him for their

livelihood.

4.

Non-applicants/owner and insurer in the claim application of the

offending vehicle, after service of notice made their appearance before

learned Claims Tribunal and submitted their reply.

5.

Owner in his reply pleaded that he was owner of the tractor bearing

No.CG10A-5654 and on the date of accident the offending vehicle was

insured with Insurance Company for a period from 21.01.2009 to

20.01.2010 midnight. Though he denied the fact of involvement of his

tractor in the accident, further pleaded that liability if any, for payment of

compensation would be on the Insurance Company as on the date of

accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company.

6.

Insurance Company also submitted its reply to the claim application

and pleaded that as the deceased himself was driving the offending

vehicle and died in the accident, application under Section 163A of the Act

would not be maintainable. Further it also been pleaded that driver of

mac 490 of 2014

3

offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license,

therefore, there is violation of conditions of Insurance Policy and the

Insurance Company may be exonerated from its liability. It has also been

pleaded that driver of offending vehicle is also one of the necessary party

in the claim application and therefore, the claimants who are LRs of the

deceased / driver of offending vehicle, cannot maintain claim application in

the facts and circumstances of the case.

7.

Learned Claims Tribunal initially passed an award on 03.12.2010

which was challenged by the Insurance Company before this Court in

MAC-336 of 2011. Division Bench of