[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Shri Manjit Singh Bath vs Vijay Kumar Komre on 25 February, 2026
1
Digitally signed
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI 2026:CGHC:9842
Date: 2026.03.07
13:35:52 +0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2307 of 2025
1 - Shri Manjit Singh Bath S/o Shri Prakash Singh Bath Aged About 50 Years
By- Light Transport, Water Tank Complex, G.E. Road Rajnandgaon, District-
Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) (Registered Owner)
2 - Vikas Kumar Vasnik S/o Chain Lal Vasnik Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village Bhulatola, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District- K.C.G. (Chhattisgarh)
(Driver)
... Appellants
Versus
1 - Vijay Kumar Komre S/o Devsai Komre Aged About 24 Years R/o M.No.-
44, Ward No.- 12, Kamansur Khargaon, Thana- Khargaon, District- Mohla
Manpur Ambagarh Chowki (Chhattisgarh) (Claimant)
2 - National Insurance Company Limited By- Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Company Limited, G.E. Road Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur
(Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Of Vehicle Truck No. CG- 08/B-1853)
... Respondents
For Appellants/Owner & : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Advocate
Driver
For Respondent No. 2/ : Mr. Pravin Tulsyan, Advocate
Insurance Company
For Respondent No.1 / : None, though served
Claimant
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment on Board
25/02/2026
1. Registered owner of the offending Truck bearing registration No. CG-08
/ B-1853 and driver (appellants herein) have preferred this appeal
challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned III rd
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) in Claim No.
986/2023 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has granted
compensation to the tune of Rs.24,23,290/- with interest @ 7% per
annum and fastened liability with the owner and driver of the offending
vehicle Truck with further stipulation of pay and recover.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 03.10.2023, at around 12:30 pm, the
claimant- Vijay Kumar Komre, Sanjana Tulavi and Anusuiya were going
to Rajnandgaon from Village Kamanpur on a motorcycle and when
they reached on main road Dongargaon, the driver of the offending
Truck bearing registration No. CG-08 / B-1853 by driving it rashly and
negligently, dashed against the motorbike, resultantly claimant Vijay
Kumar Komre sustained grievous injuries resulting in amputation of left
leg below thigh. The claimant remained hospitalized in AIMS Hospital,
Raipur from 04.10.2023 to 10.11.2023. There was fracture of thigh
bone and after surgery, a rod was inserted. On account of injuries
sustained in accident, the fracture and amputation led to permanent
disability. The claimant pleaded that at the time of accident, his age
was 24 years and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He claimed a sum of
Rs.52,42,000/-.
3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle-Truck filed reply and took
a plea that the rider of the motorbike was negligent. The driver of the
offending vehicle-Truck had valid driving licence and vehicle was
insured with the Insurance Company.
4. Insurance Company took a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle-
Truck did not have valid driving licence and said vehicle was being
plied in absence of valid permit and fitness.
5. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and
thereafter award was passed.
6. Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/owner and driver would submit that the claimant sustained
injuries on account of his own negligence. He would submit that the
issue of contributory negligence has not been considered properly by
the learned Claims Tribunal. He would contend that the claimant was
carrying 02 pillion riders in contravention of Motor Vehicle Rules. It is
also argued that the claimant did not possess a valid driving licence at
the time of accident. Mr. Khandelwal would submit that the claimant
failed to implead Insurance Company of the motorbike. It is also
argued that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to summons RTO Officer
to verify the authenticity of driving licence of driver of offending vehicle-
Truck. The burden to prove breach under Section 149 (2) of the Motor
Vehicles Act rests squarely on the insurer. He would submit that the
driver of the offending vehicle-Truck had possessed licence to drive
light and heavy transport vehicles and it was valid from 15.06.2010 to
14.06.2030 and for heavy motor vehicle from 30.07.2021 to
29.07.2026. He would submit that the accident took place on
03.10.2023 and on said date the driving licence was valid. He would
submit that the police papers such as F.I.R., chargesheet and seizure
memo are not substantive evidence. He would submit that the learned
Claims Tribunal committed error of law while exonerating the Insurance
Company and fastening the liability with the owner and driver of the
offending vehicle Truck. It is also contended that the direction of pay
and recover is also bad-in-law. He would pray to set aside the
judgment and award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Pravin Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 2/Insurance Company would submit that the driving
licence of the driver of the offending vehicle-Truck was valid from
15.06.2010 to 13.06.2023 and the appellants herein failed to prove
renewal of driving licence. He would contend that the learned Claims
Tribunal has categorically held that the driver of the offending vehicle-
Truck did not have valid and effective driving licence and that was the
reason liability was fastened with the owner and driver. He would
submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection.
9. The claimant met with an accidents on 03.10.2023. F.I.R. was lodged
vide Ex.P/2 on 04.10.2023. The offending truck was seized on
06.10.2023 along with registration certificate, fitness certificate, permit
and driving licence of the driver. The driving licence No.
CG0820100001099 was valid from 15.06.2010 to 13.06.2023. The
driver of the offending truck was arrested on 06.10.2023. In the
accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries including amputation
of left leg below thigh. There was fracture of thigh bone also and a rod
was also inserted. The owner and driver though filed reply to the claim
petition, but failed to examine any witness.
10. It is argued by counsel appearing for the appellants that the driving
licence of the driver of offending vehicle-Truck was valid for LMV from
15.06.2010 to 14.06.2030 and for heavy vehicle (T) from 30.07.2021 to
29.07.2026, but said document was neither produced before the
learned Claims Tribunal nor before this Court. In reply to claim petition,
the owner and driver of the offending vehicle-Truck failed to plead
details of driving licence. It is nowhere stated in reply that the driving
licence of the driver was valid and effective on the date of accident. As
there was no driving licence with the driver of the offending vehicle
Truck, thus, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly fastened liability with
the owner and driver of offending vehicle and exonerated the Insurance
Company. As the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, the
learned Claims Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the
award and recover it from owner and driver. The finding arrived at by
the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to fastening liability with the
owner and driver of the offending vehicle-Truck appears to be proper
and hereby affirmed. The further direction of the learned Claims
Tribunal to the Insurance Company to indemnify the award first and
recover it from the owner and driver looking to the facts of the case is
hereby affirmed.
11. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti
