Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Shakuntala Nareti vs Smt. Savitri Bai on 25 April, 2025

Digitally signed
by SOURABH 2025:CGHC:18861
SOURABH PATEL
Date:
PATEL
NAFR
2025.04.28
15:42:49
+0530

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1201 of 2018
1. Smt. Shakuntala Nareti W/o Vedram Nareti, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Shanti Nagar, Tahsil Thana And District Uttar
Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellant
versus
1. Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Late Ramudas Manikpuri, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village And Post Govindpur , Thana And Tahsil
Kanker District U B Kanker Chhattisgarh.
2. Jhanakdas , Aged About 5 Years, Being Minor Through Mother
Smt. Savitri Bai, Aged About 25 Years, W/o Late Ramudas
Manikpuri, R/o Village And Post Govindpur , Thana And Tahsil
Kanker District U B Kanker Chhattisgarh.
3. Kartikdas S/o Milandas Manikpuri, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Village And Post Govindpur , Thana And Tahsil Kanker District
U B Kanker Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Sukhani Bai Kartikdas Manikpuri , R/o Village And Post
Govindpur , Thana And Tahsil Kanker District U B Kanker
Chhattisgarh.
5. Milandas S/o Itwaridas Manikpuri, Aged About 76 Years, R/o
Village And Post Govindpur, Thana And Tahsil Kanker District
U B Kanker Chhattisgarh (Claimants).
6. Suresh Mendavi S/o Naval Singh Mandavi Aged About 21 Years
R/o Village Pusvada Thana And Tahsil Kanker District U B
Kanker Chhattisgarh (Driver ).
7. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited , Through Its Branch
Manager Branch Office, M B Trade Center, Iind Floor, Near
2

Gandhi Chowk, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
(Insurer).
--- Respondents

1. Smt. Shakuntala Nareti W/o Vedram Nareti, Aged About 51 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Tahsil Thana And District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ( Owner's Wife).

---Appellant Versus

1. Satendra Jurri S/o Devendra Jurri, Aged About 19 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village And Post Govindpur, Tahsil Thana And District U B Kanker Chhattisgarh ( Claimant ).

2. Suresh Mandavi Naval Singh Mandavi Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Pusvada, Tahsil , Thana And District U B Kanker Chhattisgarh ( Driver ).

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office, M B Trade Center, Iind Floor Near Gandhi Chowk, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ( Insurer ).

--- Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. Alok Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the Appellant in both the appeals.

For Respondent no.7 : Ms Veethika Choubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate in MAC No. 1201/2018.

For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Veethika Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate in MAC No. 1245/2018.

For Other Respondents: None.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

25/04/2025

1. As these appeals have been preferred by the Owner of the

vehicle which was involved in a same accident, they are heard

and disposed of by this common order.

2. These are owner's appeal against the award dated 19.06.2018

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker, District

- U.B. Kanker (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Cases No.

53/2017 & 52/2017.

3. In MACC No. 53/2017, as against compensation of

Rs.34,20,000/- claimed by the respondents No.1 to

5/claimants by filing claim application under Section 166(1) of

the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth 'the Act') for death of

Ramudas in the motor accident on 18.12.2016, the Tribunal

awarded a total sum of Rs.15,11,918/- along with interest at

the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its

actual payment.

4. In MACC No. 52/2017, as against compensation of

Rs.12,00,000/- claimed by the respondent No.1/claimant by

filing claim application under Section 166(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act (henceforth 'the Act') for the injury sustained by

respondent No.1/Satendra Jurri in the motor accident on

18.12.2016, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,04,415/-

along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum till its actual

payment.

5. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence, held that

the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

Bolero bearing registration No. CG-19-BF-0161 by its driver

Suresh Mandavi, i.e. respondent No.6 in MAC No. 1201/2018

and respondent No. 2 in MAC No. 1245/2018; Ramudas

(deceased) in MAC No. 1201/2018 sustained grievous injuries

and died during treatment and injured Satendra Jurri in MAC

No. 1245/2018 sustained grievous injuries in the said accident;

further, the Tribunal found that there was breach of conditions

of the policy as the owner of the offending vehicle (Bolero)

which is registered as a taxi vehicle did not have a valid permit

on the date of the accident i.e., 18.12.2016, and therefore,

National Insurance Company Limited exonerated for payment of

compensation; the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle

held liable for payment of compensation; assessed and awarded

the aforesaid sum as compensation.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submits

that the learned Claims tribunal found that the accident was

occurred due to rash and negligently driving of the driver

(Suresh Mandavi) which is an erroneous finding. He next

submits that the learned tribunal ought to have considered that

fitness certificate had been produced before the claims Tribunal

which has been issued by the competent authority. He further

submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastened the

liability on the appellant/owner for payment of compensation

and exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay

compensation only on the ground that the offending vehicle was

not having a valid permit; therefore, these appeals may be

allowed and the appellant/owner is liable to be exonerated.

7. Learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company, on the

other hand, supported the award impugned and submitted: in

the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has

rightly exonerated the insurance company from liability, which

does not call for any interference.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record of the Tribunal including award impugned.

9. Learned Tribunal found in para 11 and 12 of the award

impugned that Prakash Chandra Dhruv, Assistant Grade II in

the District Transport Office has been examined on behalf of

the insurance company, who has clearly stated in his cross-

examination that the offending vehicle has been registered as a

Maxi cab (taxi) by his transport office in the name of Vedram

Nareti. He also admitted that the permit for the offending

vehicle CG-19-BF-0161 9 (maxi cab) has not been issued by his

Office as on the date of accident i.e., 18.12.2016 and also

produced Ex.D-01 (RC book) and Ex.D-02 in this regard.

Further, GR Dhruv has also been examined on behalf of

Insurance Company, who has also stated in his cross-

examination that the said Bolero vehicle ( registered as maxi

cab) has been insured by his company from 05.10.2016 to

04.10.2017 in the name of Vedram as an insurance policy

under Ex.D.3 but it is necessary to have a permit to drive the

said vehicle which has not been issued on the date of accident

i.e., 18.12.2016. Therefore, it was held that the vehicle was

driving in breach of policy conditions and neither any witnesses

nor any documents have been produced by the owner to prove

that the driver was driving the said vehicle without any breach

of policy conditions.

10. Now, the question arises whether in the absence of valid permit to the transport/commercial vehicle at the time of accident is a fundamental breach?

11. This issue had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 wherein, in the absence of a valid and effective permit, considering the offending vehicle was driven in breach of policy conditions, exonerated the insurance company to its liability for payment of compensation.

12. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit on the date of accident i.e. 18.12.2016. Thus, in the light of the above judgments, it is found that the offending vehicle was being operated in violation of the insurance policy condition as the owner of the offending vehicle (Bolero) which is registered as a taxi vehicle did not have a valid permit. Therefore, the insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation.

13. In view of the above, the findings of the Tribunal are correct on the basis of the evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference.

14. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.