United India Insurance Company Limited vs Santosh Kumar Gahare
2026 Latest Caselaw 1158 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

United India Insurance Company Limited vs Santosh Kumar Gahare on 1 April, 2026

                                                            1

                                                MAC No. 420 of 2019




                                                                      2026:CGHC:14924

      Digitally                                                                        NAFR
ANKIT signed
KUMAR by
      ANKIT
SINGH KUMAR


                             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
      SINGH




                                              MAC No. 420 of 2019

                   United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional
                    Manager, Divisional Office-IInd Floor, Gurukripa Towers, Vyapar Vihar
                    Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.............(Non-Applicant
                    No.3).
                                                                                --- Applicant
                                                          versus
                  1. Santosh Kumar Gahare S/o Pundas Gahare, Aged About 44
                    Years,............(Applicant No.1);
                  2. Smt. Maan Bai W/o Santosh Kumar Gahare, Aged About 35
                    Years,.............(Applicant No.2);
                  3. Ku. Satyapriya Gahare D/o Santosh Kumar Gahare, Aged About 16
                    Years,.............(Applicant No.3);
                  4. Satyadev Gahare S/o Santosh Kumar Gahare, Aged About 12
                    Years,.............(Applicant No.4);
                  5. Ku. Manjuli Gahare D/o Santosh Kumar Gahare, Aged About 10
                    Years,.............(Applicant No.5);
                    Respondents No.3 to 5 are minor through their father Santosh Kumar

Gahare (Respondent No.1) Respondents No.1 to 5 all are R/o Lormi Ward no.10, P.S. & Tah. - Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

6. Santosh Kashyap @ Lalu S/o Late Tilak Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Pajaniya, P.S. & Tahsil Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh..................(Driver)............(Non-Applicant No.1).

7. Smt. Nilima Kashyap Wd/o Late Rameshwar Kashyap, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vicharpur, Gotiyapara, P.S. & Tahsil Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh..............(Non-Applicant No.2).

--- Respondents

For Appellant :- Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents :- None.

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 01.04.2026

1. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal calling in

question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award

dated 12.09.2018 passed by the 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short "Claims

Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 310/2017 whereby learned Claims

Tribunal has allowed the claim application filed under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "Act of 1988") of the

claimants and awarded a sum of ₹8,26,000/- as compensation

along with interest to the claimants by fastening the liability upon the

appellant herein.

2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance

Company, would submit that the offending vehicle did not have the

valid and effective permit and fitness certificate, therefore, the

Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount

and the Insurance Company might be exonerated from its liability to

pay compensation. In support of his submission, he would rely upon

the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh

and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and

others1.

3. None for the respondents/claimants though served.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the

records precisely.

5. The insurance company has pleaded that the offending vehicle did

not have valid permit and fitness certificate, but in order to prove the

said plea Abdul Kaleem, Deputy Manager of the Insurance Company,

has been examined in which he has only stated that offending vehicle

must have the valid permit and effective fitness certificate as per

shown Ex.D/1. He has also stated that the offending vehicle did not

have the effective permit and fitness certificate on the ground that it

has not been mentioned in final report (Ex.P/1) in which the Owner of

the offending vehicle has been charged for offence under Section

56/192 and 66/192 of the Act, 1988 for using vehicle without permit

and fitness certificate.

1 (2018) 7 SCC 558

6. Merely because, Owner of the vehicle has been added as an accused

before the Criminal Court for not having the valid and effective

permit and fitness certificate, it cannot be presumed that the owner

of the offending vehicle did not have the valid and effective permit

and fitness certificate to ply the offending vehicle. To prove that the

owner of the offending vehicle did not have the valid and effective

permit and fitness certificate, Insurance Company must have brought

on record the clinching evidence in this regard and only on the basis

of owner of the vehicle added as an accused, the said fact cannot be

proved. In that view matter, the Claims Tribunal has rightly fasten the

liability upon the Insurance Company to pay the compensation

amount to the claimants and, as such, I do not find any merit in the

instant appeal, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit