Chattisgarh High Court

Branch Manager, Tata Aig General ... vs Rajendra Kumar Sahu on 3 March, 2025

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                         1




                                                            2025:CGHC:10371


                                                                        NAFR

           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                            MAC No. 855 of 2017

Branch Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.
Rajbandha Graound, Navbharat Press Complex Building, Behind
District Co-Operative Bank Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer
                                                        ... Appellant (Insurer)
                                      Versus
1 - Rajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Chitren Sahu, Aged About 22 Years R/o
Gandhi Nagar Near Naya Talab Gudiyari Raipur Tehsil And District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimant,


2 - Pikesh Kumar Sahu S/o Suresh Kumar Sahu, Aged About 26 Years
R/o      Village      Hathkhoj,        P.S.     Bhilai-3,    District     Durg,
Chhattisgarh .............Driver,


3 - B. Subhashis W/o Tirupatiya, R/o Q.No. 15/ M, Road No. Avenue D.
Sector        06,       Bhilai,        Tehsil     And       District      Durg,
Chhattisgarh ...............Owner,
                                                             ... Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Richa Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. AK Yadav, Advocate.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J

Judgment on Board 03/03/2025 The appellant/insurer has filed the instant appeal under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 25.2.2017

passed by VI Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim

Case No.42/2014 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total

compensation of Rs.1,82,661/- with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the

date of claim petition to respondent No.1/claimant, fastening the liability

upon the appellant/insurer.

02. Respondent No.1/claimant filed an application under Section 166

read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act stating that on 20.1.2014

in the morning the claimant along with one Mohit Sahu was going from

his village Jevra Navagaon to Raipur by motorcycle HF Delux Self

bearing registration No. CG 04 KV 4587. The motorcycle was being

ridden by the claimant. However, when they reached Khudmuda

Mandi, a vehicle Bolero Pickup bearing registration No. CG 07 CA

9227 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the offending vehicle") which

was being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite

direction and hit the claimant's motorcycle as a result of which the

claimant suffered fracture of right leg bone and his motorcycle also got

completely damaged. The claimant remained hospitalized from

20.1.2014 to 4.2.2014 where a rod was inserted in his leg. At the time

of accident, he was 22 years of age and working in a courier service

and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He claimed a total sum of

Rs.13.30 lacs as compensation from the respondents/non-applicants

under various heads with interest @ 12% pa.

03. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2/Driver & Owner of the offending vehicle

in their written statement denied the allegation that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving by non-applicant No.1. They

stated that in fact, on the fateful day construction of road was going on,

a truck was standing there and non-applicant No.1 was driving the

offending vehicle moderately on his side. Since there was dust all over

in the air as construction of road was going on, the claimant himself

could not see the offending vehicle coming from behind the standing

truck and hit the offending vehicle. Thus, non-applicants No. 1 & 2 are

not at all liable for paying any compensation to the claimant and

whatever compensation is awarded to the claimant, it is payable by

non-applicant No.3/insurance company.

04. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement

contended that the offending vehicle was never involved in the alleged

accident. It is denied that any FIR was lodged in respect of the alleged

accident, therefore, the claim application is liable to be dismissed with

cost. It was also contended that driver of the offending vehicle did not

possess a valid and effective driving licence and as such, there being

breach of policy conditions also, the insurance company is not liable to

pay any compensation to the claimant.

05. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned

Tribunal framed six issues and after appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as

mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

06. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the

impugned award is bad on facts as well as law. The Tribunal failed to

consider the evidence of DW-1 in its proper perspective that Licence

No.P/25984 was issued in the year 2004 in the name of Peeyush

Kumar Parkar, not in the name of Pikesh Kumar Sahu, therefore, the

licence seized from non-applicant No.1 which shows the date of

issuance as 2006 is a fake and forged because the same series and

licence number cannot be issued subsequently to others. Learned

Tribunal also failed to consider that as per Section 14 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, currency or validity of licence authorization to drive LMV

is for 20 years. In the instant case, the seized licence was issued on

3.11.2008 and valid up to 2.11.2026 which is less than 20 years, as

such there is strong apprehension that the seized licence is a fake one.

He further submits that the offending vehicle is registered and insured

as a goods carrying commercial vehicle and as per Sections 2(47) and

14 of the MV Act, it comes under the definition of "transport vehicle"

whereas the seized licence was for LMV. Thus, there is being breach of

policy conditions, the insurance company is not liable to pay any

compensation to the claimant and the impugned award deserves to be

set aside or modified to this extent.

07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents support

the impugned award and submit that the learned Tribunal after proper

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly

granted compensation to the claimant fastening the liability upon the

insurance company and as such, the present appeal being without any

substance is liable to be dismissed.

08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

09. It is clear from the record of learned Tribunal that the Tribunal

framed Issues No. 2 & 3 as under:

dza- वाद-प्रश्न निष्कर्ष

02. क्या उक्त दुर्घटना दिनांक को प्रश्नाधीन वाहन "हां"

बोलेरो पिकअप क्रमांक-सी.जी.07. सी.ए., 9227

अनावेदक क.-03 के द्वारा बीमित थी?

03. क्या अनावेदक क.-01 एवं 02 ने प्रश्नाधीन वाहन "नहीं"

बोलेरो पिकअप कमांक-सी.जी.07, सी. ए., 9227

के चालन में बीमा शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया?

10. The appellant/insurance company examined Satyendra Kumar

Soni, AG-III in Additional Regional Transport Office, Durg as DW-1 who

states that as per record of RTO, Durg, permanent driving licence was

issued on 18.11.2004 in favour of Piyush Kumar Parkar, s/o Ram Pyara

Parkar, R/o Shanti Nagar, Bhilai for motorcycle with gear and LMV

which is valid till 17.11.2024. The driving licence number is P-25984

and in the register Ex.D/1 there is no entry in the name of Piyush

Kumar Parkar for driving any other kind of vehicle. He states that

vehicle bearing No. CG 07 CA 9227 falls in the category of Light Goods

Pickup Vehicle.

11. Learned Tribunal appreciated the statement of this witness and

found that as per seizure memo of Ex.P/5, driving licence seized by the

police from non-applicant No.1 is in the name of Pikesh Kumar Sahu,

bearing No. P/25984 and is valid up to 2.11.2026. However, as per

DW-1 Satyendra Kumar Soni, driving licence bearing No. P/25984 was

issued in the name of one Piyush Kumar Parkar S/o Ram Pyara

Parkar. Learned Tribunal found that Satyendra Kumar Soni brought the

register of 2004 whereas driving licence was issued in favour of non-

applicant No.1 Pikesh Kumar Sahu on 3.11.2008 and no oral or

documentary evidence was adduced by the insurance company that on

3.11.2008 no driving licence was issued in the name of non-applicant

No.1 Pikesh Kumar Sahu. So learned Tribunal minutely appreciated

the oral and documentary evidence and rightly found that as per driving

licence seized by the police in criminal case, no register containing

details of this driving licence which was issued in the year 2008 was

filed by the insurance company.

12. It is well settled that the burden of proof lies on the party who

makes allegation or assertion. The insurance company alleges that

there is breach of policy conditions, however, it has utterly failed to

adduce any evidence, oral or documentary, to prove the same. Being

so, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding the appellant/insurance

company liable for paying compensation to the claimant.