Kripalnath Yogi vs Anand @ Anandram Sahu
2026 Latest Caselaw 316 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Kripalnath Yogi vs Anand @ Anandram Sahu on 11 March, 2026

                                        1




 Digitally signed
 by RAMESH
 KUMAR VATTI
 Date:
                                                       2026:CGHC:11634
 2026.03.12
 15:41:08 +0530
                                                                      NAFR

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                              MAC No. 1532 of 2019
1 - Kripalnath Yogi S/o Amar Nath Yogi Aged About 28 Years R/o Village
Sonpuri ( Rani ) Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
(Owner Of Truck No. C G - 09 B - 0766)
2 - Balram Chandravanshi S/o Milluram Chandravanshi Aged About 50 Years
R/o Rajmahal Chowk, Samnapur Marg Kawardha, Police Station Kawardha,
District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Truck No. C G - 09 B - 0766)
                                                                 ... Appellants
                                     Versus
1 - Anand @ Anandram Sahu S/o Shiv Prasad Sahu Aged About 26 Years
R/o Village Manikchauri, Police Station Pipariya, Tahsil Kawardha, District
Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
2 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional
Office First Floor, Chouhan Estate G.E. Road, Supela, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
                                                              ... Respondents

For Appellants/Owner : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate and Driver

For Respondent No. 1/ : Mr. Kanhaiya Lal, Advocate holding the Claimant brief of Mr. Anurag Bajpai, Advocate

For Respondent No. 2/ : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate Insurance Company

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 11/03/2026

1. The appellants / owner and driver of the offending vehicle Truck

bearing registration No. CG-09 / B-0766 have preferred this appeal

challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Additional

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.) Kabirdham, District Kabirdham

(C.G.) in Claim Case No. 94/2017 dated 19.06.2019, whereby the

learned Claims Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of

Rs.2,24.475/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account injuries

sustained by claimant- Anand @ Anandram Sahu / respondent No.1.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 29.06.2017 at around 11-12:00 pm

motorcycle of claimant- Anand @ Anandram Sahu was dashed by the

offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG-09 / B-0766

(hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'). In said accident, the

claimant sustained injuries including fracture of right shoulder and

skull. The claimant remained hospitalized for 07 days and surgery was

done. He claimed a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/-.

3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed reply and denied the

averments made in the claim petition. They pleaded that the rider of the

motorcycle was negligent.

4. Insurance Company filed separate reply and took plea that the driver of

the offending vehicle Truck did not have valid driving licence and

fitness certificate and there was contributory negligence.

5. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and

thereafter award was passed.

6. Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants / owner and driver would submit that the fitness certificate

was seized by police and this fact is evident from seizure memo vide

Ex. A-7. He would submit that on the date of accident, the fitness

certificate was effective. He would contend that the learned Claims

Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that

on the date of accident, there was no valid permit and fitness

certificate with the offending vehicle. He would submit that the finding

recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal appears to be erroneous and

contrary to the material available on record. He would pray to set

aside the judgment and award dated 19.06.2019 passed by the

learned Claims Tribunal.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company would oppose.

He would submit that the owner of the offending vehicle failed to submit

fitness certificate before the learned Claims Tribunal. It is argued that

the Insurance Company examined one Imlesh Ramteke, Assistant,

New India Assurance Company, who categorically stated that as the

offending vehicle was a commercial one, therefore, permit and fitness

certificate were mandatory. This witness further stated that on the date

of accident, the offending vehicle was being plied in absence of valid

fitness and in this regard, this witness has placed information granted

by the Public Information Officer, Regional Transport Office, Kabirdham

dated 21.12.2018 vide Ex. D-2. This document states that on the date

of accident i.e. 29.06.2017, there was no valid fitness certificate with

the offending vehicle. This witness was cross-examined by the owner

and driver of the offending vehicle, but the witness remained

consistent. The learned Claims Tribunal has considered this issue in

paragraph no. 13 of its judgment and held that on the date of accident,

there was no fitness certificate with the offending vehicle and

consequently exonerated the Insurance Company and fastened liability

with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

8. Mr. Kanhaiya Lal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 /

claimant would support the judgment and award dated 19.06.2019

passed by the learned Claims Tribunal.

9. The issue with regard to the requirement of a fitness certificate is no

more res-integra as the Full bench of the High Court of Kerala in the

matter of Pareed Pillai v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Ernakulam

reported in AIR 2019 KERALA 9 while dealing with Sections 147,

149(2)(a)(i)(c), 66 and 56(1) of the Act, 1988 held that the absence of a

valid permit is a fundamental breach and not a technical breach. A

similar view has been taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in

the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Vinod & Ors.

reported in 2019 (3) C.G.L.J. 33 (M.P.).

10. The High Court of Kerala in the matter of Pareed Pillai (supra) while

dealing with this issue in para 17 held as under:-

"17. The stipulations under the above provisions clearly substantiate the importance and necessity to have a valid Fitness Certificate the transport vehicle all times. The above prescription converges on the point that Certificate of Registration, existence of valid Permit and availability of Fitness Certificate, all throughout, are closely interlinked in the case of a transport vehicle and one requirement cannot be segregated from the other. The transport vehicle should be completely fit and road worthy, to be plied on the road, which otherwise may cause threat to the lives and limbs of passengers and the general public, apart from damage to property. Only if the transport vehicle is having valid Fitness Certificate, would the necessary Permit be issued in terms of Section 66 of the Act and by virtue of the mandate under Section 56 of the Act, no transport vehicle without Fitness Certificate will be deemed as a validly registered vehicle for the purpose of Section 39 of the Act, which stipulates that nobody shall drive or cause the motor vehicle to be driven without valid registration in public place or such other place, as the case may be. These requirements are quite 'fundamental' in nature; unlike a case where a transport vehicle carrying more passengers than the permitted capacity or a goods carriage carrying excess quantity of goods than the permitted extent or a case where a trans- port vehicle was plying through a deviated route than the one shown in the route permit which instances could rather be

branded as 'technical violations'. In other words, when a transport vehicle is not having a Fitness Certificate, it will be deemed as having no Certificate of Registration and when such vehicle is not having Permit or Fitness Certificate, nobody can drive such vehicle and no owner can permit the use of any such vehicle compromising with the lives, limbs, properties of the passengers/general public. Obviously, since the safety of passengers and general public was of serious concern and consideration for the law makers, appropriate and adequate measures were taken by incorporating relevant provisions in the Statute, also pointing out the circumstances which would constitute offence; providing adequate penalty. This being the position, such lapse, if any, can only be regarded as a fundamental breach and not a technical breach and any interpretation to the contrary, will only negate the intention of the law makers."

11. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Vinod (supra) in

paras 10 and 17 held as under:-

"10. Thus, it is clear that for use of a vehicle, Insurance Policy is required under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and for use of a vehicle, its registration is compulsory and for registration, the fitness certificate of the transport vehicle is necessary under Section 56 of Motor Vehicles Act. Use of vehicle without registration is also punishable under Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the requirement of fitness certificate for the liability of the Insurance Company is not dependent upon the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, but it is the requirement of law for using the vehicle in accordance with law and none of the term or condition of the Insurance Policy allows the owner of the vehicle to ply the vehicle in contravention of any provision of law. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that due to non-availability of the fitness certificate it can be safely said that the vehicle was being used contrary to the provisions of law, and since, the insurance policy is required under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, it cannot be said that Insurance Policy is a private contract of insurance between the driver and the Insurance Company, but in fact it is the statutory requirement.

17. Accordingly, it is held that since the offending vehicle was not having the fitness certificate on the date of the accident, therefore, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated and thus the Insurance Company is not .jointly and severally liable to make payment of compensation. However, in the light of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Amrit Paul Singh Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd and Shamanna and another Vs. Divisional Manager the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and- others*, it is held that the Insurance Company shall be liable to make payment of the compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from the owner."

12. In the present case, a valid fitness certificate was not available with the

offending vehicle at the time of the accident and it can be termed as a

substantial breach of the insurance policy. The driver and owner of the

offending vehicle failed to examine witness and they also failed to

submit fitness certificate with the concerned Tribunal. Even a copy of

fitness certificate has not been placed along with this appeal, therefore,

the learned Claims Tribunal rightly recorded a finding that there was no

valid fitness certificate with the offending vehicle on the date of

accident.

13. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Claims

Tribunal, the facts discussed above and the law laid down in the

matters of Pareed Pillai (supra) Vinod (supra), I do not find any good

ground to interfere with the judgment and award dated 19.06.2019

passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal fails

and is hereby dismissed. No order(s) to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

vatti