[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ganesh Singh vs Sushila on 27 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:10364
Digitally
PRAKASH
signed by
PRAKASH
KUMAR
NAFR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.28
14:12:30
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
+0530
MAC No. 856 of 2016
1 - Ganesh Singh S/o Beegan Ram, Aged About 47 Years, Caste Gond, R/o
Village Bhagwanpur Kenapara, P.S. Chalgali, Post Bartikala, District
Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.........Owner of The Vehicle,
2 - Pratosh Singh Gond, S/o Somaru Singh Gond, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village Bhagwanpur Kenapara, P.S. Chalgali, Post Bartikala, District
Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.....Driver of The Vehicle
--- Appellants
versus
1 - Sushila W/o Late Shri Umesh Singh Ayam, Aged About 22 Years,
2 - Akansha @ Rajkumari Ayam, D/o Late Shri Umesh Singh Ayam, Aged
About 2 months,
Respondent No.2 is minor and therefore through her natural guardian Mother
Sushila, W/o Late Shri Umesh Singh Ayam, Aged about 22 years,
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are R/o Village Barpatiya, Post Ramkola, P.S.
Ramkola, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh..........Claimants
3 - Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, 6th Floor, Megamall,
Mall Road, Kanpur 208001, (0512-3099500-99 Bharti AXA General
Insurance Company Limited).......Non Applicant No. 3
4 - Lalman, S/o Hiran Gond, Aged About 55 Years,
5 - Budhmaniya, W/o Lalman, Aged About 50 Years,
Respondent No.4 & 5 are Caste Gond, R/o Village Barpatiya, Post Ramkola,
Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For Appellants : Smt. Seema Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Nilesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For Respondent No.4 & 5 : Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
D.N. Prajapati, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
27.02.2026
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/owner and driver under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated
31.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Motor Accidents Claim
Case No.33/2014, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation
of Rs. 5,02,200/- with interest, fastening the liability upon the Non-
Applicants No.1 & 2 jointly and severally.
2. As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 14.08.2014,
Umesh Singh Aayam (deceased hereinafter), was working in the
agricultural field. At that time, Non-Applicant No.2/ Pratosh Singh, who
was driving the tractor bearing Engine No.F47116, Chassis
No.921813171804 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') in
a rash and negligent manner and in that event, the said tractor turned
turtle on the body of the deceased, as a result of which he sustained
severe injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the
offending vehicle was owned by Non-applicant No.1 - Ganesh Singh
and insured with Non-applicant No.3 - Bharti AXA General Insurance
Company Limited.
3. Upon the claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.
28,14,000/-, it was, inter alia, pleaded that at the time of the accident,
the deceased was aged about 23 years and was earning Rs. 6,000/-
per month by working as a labourer. The learned Claims Tribunal, after
considering the evidence adduced by the parties, passed the award as
mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/ owner and driver of the offending
vehicle, submits that the impugned award passed by the learned
Claims Tribunal, fastening liability upon the appellants / owner and
driver without proper appreciation of the evidence and material
available on record, is erroneous and unsustainable in law. She further
submits that the offending vehicle was duly insured with Non-Applicant
No.3/Insurance Company on the date of the accident and the same is
evident from the insurance policy (Ex.P-8) wherein the period of
effective insurance policy is mentioned as 13.08.2014 to 12.08.2015,
and the date of accident is 14.08.2014. In addition, the policy
verification letter (Ex.D-10) which is issued by the Non-Applicant
No.3/Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein it is specifically
mentioned that the date of risk cover starts from 13.08.2014 to
12.08.2015. She further submits that finding recorded by the learned
Claims Tribunal in paragraph 15 and 16 of the impugned award with
regard to effectiveness of the insurance policy, is erroneous. Hence,
the appellants cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3/insurance company
supports the impugned award and submits that at the time of the
accident, the offending vehicle was not duly insured with the Insurance
Company, and the learned Claims Tribunal, after proper appreciation
of the evidence available on record, has rightly fastened the liability
upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/ claimants, while
admitting that no separate appeal has been preferred by them against
the impugned award, supports the impugned award.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
8. The question that arises for consideration is whether the learned
Claims Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability upon the owner
and driver of the offending vehicle.
9. On the basis of the statement of the claimants and the documents
submitted by the police authorities, including the FIR (Ex.P-2), spot
map and charge-sheet, the learned Claims Tribunal recorded a clear
finding that the deceased died as a result of the accident caused by
the offending vehicle. This finding regarding the involvement of the
offending vehicle and the death arising out of the said accident has not
been challenged and, therefore, the same stands established.
10. So far as the insurance policy of the offending vehicle is concerned,
the seizure memo prepared during investigation shows that a copy of
the insurance policy was seized and placed on record along with the
final report. The certified copy of the policy (Ex.P-8), duly attested by
Station House Officer, Police Station Chalgali, District - Balrampur and
exhibited before the Tribunal, reveals that the offending vehicle was
insured for the period from 13.08.2014 to midnight of 12.08.2015. The
learned Claims Tribunal, however, erred in holding that since 15.08.2014
was a public holiday for Government and semi-Government offices, the
policy could not have been issued. The said reasoning is not
sustainable, as the material question was whether the policy was valid
and in force on the date of accident and not whether 15.08.2014 was a
holiday. A plain reading of the policy clearly shows that the risk
commenced from 13.08.2014 and continued up to midnight of
12.08.2015. Furthermore, the verification letter issued by the Insurance
Company (Ex.D-10) also confirms that the policy was effective on the
date of accident. Therefore, it is held that the offending vehicle was duly
insured with the Non-Applicant No.3/insurance company and the policy
was valid at the time of the accident, and as such, the contrary finding
recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is liable to be modified.
11.Consequently, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify and pay
the compensation to the claimants as awarded by the Tribunal, and the
owner and driver of the offending vehicle stand exonerated from the
liability. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge
Prakash
