Chattisgarh High Court
Nagendra Singh vs Smt. Monika Sharma on 16 June, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:24219
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 127 of 2019
1. Nagendra Singh S/o Shri Kamal Singh Aged About 58 Years
Occupation Vehicle Owner, Resident Of Mandi Chowk, In
Front Rma Mandir, Pandritarai, P.S. Pandri District Raipur
Chhattisgarh (Owner).
2. Sushant Sethi S/o Shri Kumar Sethi, Aged About 24 Years
Occupation - Vehicle Driver, R/o Khetrajpur, P.S. Laxmi
Talkies, District Sambalpur (Odisa), (Driver).
....Appellants
versus
1. Smt. Monika sharma w/o late Hari Om Sharma aged about 27
years r/o LIG 1296, Sector-8, housing board colony, saddhu,
p.s. Pandri, Mowa Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Priyanshu Sharma S/o Late Hariom Aged About 9 Years
(Minor), Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian
Smt. Monika Sharma, W/o Late Hariom Sharma, R/o LIG
1296, Sector -8, Housing Board Colony, Saddhu, P.S. Pandri,
Mowa Raipur Chhattisgarh (Claimants)
3. Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Company
Limited, Plot No.1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Maruti Heritage,
Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
(Insurer)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Anamika Jain on behalf of Mr.
Deverishi Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Ms. Laxmi Gupta, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Pragalbh Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. S. Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Ratan Pusty, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
16/6/2025
1. Appellants-owner and driver, have filed this appeal
challenging the liability fastened upon them by the learned 4 th
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short
'the Claims Tribunal') of paying the amount of compensation
to claimants as awarded by its vide award dated 13.4.2018 in
Claim Case No.704/2014.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 28.3.2014 at about
11:45 a.m. on Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur the truck bearing
registration mark CG04-ZC-0485, which was driven in a rash
and negligent manner by its driver, dashed motorcycle
bearing registration mark CG04-DD-8291 and caused
accident. In the said accident, Hariom Sharma and Rishi
Kumar Sahu, rider and pillion of motorcycle, sustained
grievous injuries and died. Accident was reported in
concerned police station. Claimants, who are widow and son
of deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') seeking
compensation to the tune of Rs.82,20,000/- on the ground
that deceased died in a road accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver. They
pleaded the occupation of deceased Hariom Sharma as
contractor and income therefrom as Rs.20,000/- per month.
3. Non-applicant No.1-driver did not turn up before the Claims
Tribunal, hence,he was proceeded ex-parte. Non-applicant
No.2 owner of offending vehicle filed reply denying allegation
of negligent driving and pleading that accident resulting in
death of deceased occurred due to negligent driving of
motorcycle by its driver. Insurance Company also filed a
separate reply pleading that offending vehicle was not insured
with it, the documents of insurance produced by owner of
offending vehicle are forged and have not been issued by
insurance company. At the time of accident, driver of
offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving
licence, even there was no fitness certificate and permit.
Therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation.
4. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the materials brought on
record by the parties, came to the conclusion that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle by its driver; the offending vehicle was not insured
with non-applicant No.3 at the time of accident; awarded total
compensation of Rs.25,90,000/- and fastened liability upon
the driver and owner of offending vehicle.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
Claims Tribunal grossly erred in law in fastening liability on
the appellants and exonerating the insurance company. She
submits that insurance policy as issued by respondent No.3
and premium has also been paid. Respondent No.3 has not
issued any notice to appellant No.1, owner of offending
vehicle, that cover note of Sr. No.JPR3838389, which was
issued to owner of offending vehicle, is missing. Therefore,
the Claims Tribunal ought not to have exonerated respondent
No.3 only on the ground that cover note has been lost and
FIR has been lodged for the same. She further submits that
the age of claimant No.1 and the deceased is appearing to be
one and the same i.e. 27 years, which is suggestive of the
fact that PAN card and Voter Identity Card issued in their
favour are forged and fabricated documents.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.3 vehemently opposes submissions of learned
counsel for the appellants and submits that the offending
vehicle was never insured with respondent No.3. He submits
that Cover Note bearing No.JPR3838389 in respect of
offending vehicle was lost and FIR to that effect in concerned
police station was also lodged. Under these circumstances,
the finding of the Claims Tribunal exonerating respondent
No.3 does not call for any interference.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused record of claim case including impugned award.
8. The Claims Tribunal exonerated respondent No.3 Insurance
Company from its liability recording that there was no
insurance contract between the insured and insurer and as
such, the insurer i.e. respondent No.3, is not bound to satisfy
the impugned award.
9. Respondent No.3 had emphatically pleaded in written
statement that respondent No.3 is not the insurer of offending
vehicle and Cover Note of Sr. No.JPR3838389 has not been
issued by the office of respondent No.3 because the same
has been lost. In this regard the Law Officer of respondent
No.3 namely Punit Rathore (NAW-1) was examined, who has
stated that the cover notes of Cover Note No.JPR 3838389
had been lost regarding which a written complaint (Ex.D-1)
was lodged in Police Station Amanaka, Raipur on 3.8.2013.
He stated that a public notice (Ex.D-2) with respect to loss of
cover note book bearing No.JPR 3838389 was also got
published by the respondent No.3 in the daily newspaper
Dainik Bhaskar on 15.6.2014 thereby informing the public at
large regarding the loss of the said cover note. He has further
stated that cover note of Sr. No.JPR 3838389 produced in the
matter is infact the lost cover note regarding which
information was given in police station and notice was
published in newspaper giving numbers of lost cover notes,
mentioning that use of said cover note and proposal FORM
leafs will be treated as illegal. In case of misuse lost cover
notes then insurance company will not be liable for the same.
10. Ex.D-1 is the complaint made by one Rakesh Kumar Pandey
with Police Station Amanaka, Raipur with respect of lost of
documents including blank Cover Note bearing Sr. No.JPR
3838389. Respondent No.3 had also produced copies of
judgment passed by the court of Commissioner, Employee's
Compensation, Gadhchiroli wherein also insurance policy
bears cover note of serial number, which is subject matter of
FIR lodged and public notice was issued in case at hand, and
the Court at Gadhchiroli finding substance on the defence of
insurance company has held that there is no contract of
indemnity in force on the day of incident between non-
applicant Nos.1 and 2 covering the risk of death or injury of
employee.
11. A copy of alleged insurance policy of offending vehicle is
available in record of the Claims Tribunal and a glance of
which would show that it has been issued on 25.1.2014.
Whereas, the complaint regarding lost of cover note of serial
mentioned in the policy alleged to have been issued in favour
of appellant No.1 on 25.1.2014, has already been lodged on
3.8.2013 i.e. much before the accident in question which
occurred on 28.3.2014.
12. Thus, it can be seen that the Insurance Company by
producing the documentary evidence proved to the core that
blank cover note of the policy in question was lost. When the
Insurance company takes specific defence about non-
issuance of insurance policy, then the burden lies on the
owner of vehicle to prove that offending vehicle was insured
with respondent No.3 Insurance Company. However, perusal
of the record would show that appellant No.1, owner of
offending vehicle, had not discharged his burden of proof by
leading any documentary evidence to support that insurance
policy was a genuine one. Appellant No.1 who actively
contested the claim case, has not come forward and placed
on record any material like receipt of payment of premium of
insurance nor examined agent of the insurance company to
say that the policy in the name of appellant No.1 was taken
by appellant No.1 through him/her and that the appellant No.1
had paid the premium.
13. In view of the above, it is apparent that respondent No.3 had
been able to establish before the Claims Tribunal by leading
documentary evidence that cover note which follows the
policy in question has been lost much prior to the date of
issuance of policy and the policy with regard to the offending
vehicle that was produced before the Claims Tribunal, is not
genuine. This being the position, in the considered opinion of
this Court, the Claims Tribunal justified in fastening liability
upon the driver and owner of the vehicle and exonerating the
Insurance Company.
14. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, this appeal has no
substance, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR
ALI
Digitally
signed by
SYED SD/-
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/
