[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
The New India Insurance Company Limited vs Minor Shiva Kashyap on 30 March, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
GOPAL SINGH
Date:
2026.04.06
15:31:03
+0530
2026:CGHC:14851
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 385 of 2022
1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Garment Of India,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Through Authorized
Signatory, Manager Suit Legal Hub, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Centre,
Above Axis Bank, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - Minor Shiva Kashyap S/o Rajaram Aged About 7 Years Minor Shiva
Kashyap Through His Natural Guardian Father Rajaram Aged 28 Years,
S/o Dhnau, Caste Kashyap, R/o Akaltara, P.S. Janjgir, Tahsil Janjgir
District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
2 - Ramnarayan Binjhwar S/o Shyamlal Binjhwar Aged About 34 Years
R/o Karma, P.S. Pantora, Tehsil Balaoda, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
3 - Siddhart (Construction) C/o Saurabh Sharma R/o Near Ganesh
Talkies Main Road, Naila, P.S. Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellant : Shri B.N. Nande, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Shri Devendra Kashyap, Advocate on
behalf of Shri P.K. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Shri V.P. Shrivas, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : None
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
30/03/2026
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short 'the MV Act') has been filed being aggrieved by the
award dated 25.10.2021 passed by the 1 st Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) (for
short 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.54 of 2021.
2. By the award impugned, the learned Claims Tribunal has
awarded compensation of Rs.10,19,819 to respondent
No.1/claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in an
accident that occurred on 13.3.2020 by rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle Hyva bearing registration No.CG
11 AA 9620 driven by respondent No.2, owned by respondent
No.3 and insured with the appellant.
3. As per pleadings of the claim application, on account of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle, respondent No.1
sustained serious injuries including amputation of his leg. Thus,
claiming compensation of Rs.55,25,000, the claim application
under Section 166 of the MV Act was filed.
4. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various
counts including the insurance company taking a plea of
violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Learned
Claims Tribunal having framed issues decided the same in favour
of respondent No.1 and awarded the above stated
compensation. The Claims Tribunal also found that there is no
violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus,
the appellant was held liable to pay the compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits
that the offending vehicle is a heavy goods vehicle and there
was no permit of the offending vehicle. Even the driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving
licence. He further submits that the necessary papers to
demonstrate the factum of validity of licence were received by
the appellant/insurance company and they were put on record,
however, no further opportunity to lead evidence was granted to
the appellant to prove the same. He further submits that the
owner has also admitted that there was no permit of the
offending vehicle. As the insurance company could not prove the
above stated defence before the Claims Tribunal by leading
cogent and prudent evidence, the application under Order 41
Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed along with a
report of the investigator with regard to licence of respondent
No.2 and extract of driving licence obtained from the Transport
Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. Even otherwise, as
there was no permit, the appellant ought to have been
exonerated from paying the compensation and also copy of the
permit which prima facie goes to show that the permit was
effective from 18.3.2020 to 17.3.2025. Thus, he submits that the
application may be allowed and the additional evidence may be
taken in appeal.
6. Opposing the above submission, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1/claimant and respondent No.3/owner jointly
submit that the documents relied upon by the
appellant/insurance company could have been placed before the
learned Claims Tribunal, which the appellant failed to do so.
Thus, this appeal cannot be allowed as the defence taken by the
insurance company could not be proved by leading cogent and
prudent evidence. They submit that the application has no merit
and is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with due care.
8. This Court would like to first deal as to whether the application
filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for
taking additional evidence on record can be allowed or not. The
application is supported by an affidavit. It has been stated in the
application that when the notice of the claim application was
received by the appellant/insurance company, no document was
submitted along with it and ultimately on 29.9.2021 the
documents with regard to permit, fitness and driving licence
were received by the investigator of the insurance company. The
investigation report was received by the insurance company on
30.10.2021 and prior to that the award could have been passed.
The defence which appears to have been put forth by the
insurance company that the offending vehicle was driven by the
driver without any valid and effective driving licence, the
offending vehicle being heavy goods vehicle required to have a
valid and effective permit. Taking into consideration the above
stated facts and in order to do complete justice by allowing the
insurance company to prove its defence, in the opinion of this
Court, the application may be allowed. Thus, the application is
allowed and the documents are taken on record. However, in the
opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be served if the
matter is remanded back to the learned Claims Tribunal for
decision making permitting the appellant/insurance company to
lead proper evidence in order to prove its defence with regard to
validity of licence and permit of the offending vehicle. Thus, this
Court is inclined to remit back the matter by setting aside the
impugned award. The remand is only made in respect of proving
the defence of the insurance company and not with any other
respect. The parties are directed to appear before the learned
Claims Tribunal on 12.5.2026 permitting the
appellant/insurance company to lead evidence to prove its
defence.
9. This Court vide its interim order directed the insurance company
to deposit 50% of the awarded amount. As respondent No.1 has
suffered severe injuries, it is hereby directed that the
appellant/insurance company shall deposit the entire amount as
awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal before the Claims
Tribunal on or before the date of appearance fixed by this Court.
10. The learned Claims Tribunal shall decide the issue relating to
violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy (issue
No.3) and thereafter pass appropriate orders. The amount of
compensation shall not be reduced by the learned Claims
Tribunal.
11. The instant appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated
above. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back along with a
copy of this order forthwith.
12. It is expected that the learned Claims Tribunal shall decide the
matter within a period of six months from 12.5.2026.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE
Gopal
