Branch Manager, United India Insurance ... vs Smt. Kachara Bai
2026 Latest Caselaw 794 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Branch Manager, United India Insurance ... vs Smt. Kachara Bai on 20 March, 2026

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                                Page 1 of 4

                                      (MAC Nos.345/2019 & 348/2019)




                                                                         2026:CGHC:13522
           Digitally
           signed by
           SISTA                                                                 NAFR
SISTA      SOMAYAJULU
SOMAYAJULU Date:
           2026.03.23
           10:53:23     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
           +0530


                                       MAC No. 345 of 2019

                    Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Office
                    Opposite Paras Complex, Gurudwara, Station Road, Durg, Tehsil &
                    District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Authorized Signatory United
                    India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 2 nd Floor, Guru
                    Kripa Towers, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                              (N.A.No.3)
                                                                         --- Appellant

                                                versus

                1. Smt Nira, aged 40 years, Wd/o Late Bharat Lal,

                2. Khilesh Kumar, aged 23 years

                3. Manish Kumar, aged 21 years

                4. Nemichand, aged 18 years

                    Resp. Nos.2 to 4 S/o Late Bharat Lal

                    All above by Caste "Kenvat", R/o Village Rouna, Post Kandul, Police
                    Station Arjunda, Tehsil Gundardehi, District Baloud, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                            (Claimants)

                5. Chandan Kumar, aged 32 years, S/o Mohan Lal Nishad, R/o Village
                    & Post Sikosa, Police Station & Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Baloud,
                    Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                (Driver)

                6. Laxmi Narayan Sinha, aged 49 years, S/o Late Yadram Sinha, Caste
                    Kalar, R/o Village Chaingunj, Post & Police Station & Tehsil
                    Gundardehi, District Baloud, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                         (Owner)
                                                                --- Respondents

AND

(MAC Nos.345/2019 & 348/2019)

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Office Opposite Paras Complex, Gurudwara, Station Road, Durg, Tehsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Authorized Signatory, United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 2 nd Floor, Guru Kripa Towers, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

(N.A.No.3)

--- Appellant

Versus

1. Smt. Kachara Bai, aged 40 years, Wd/o Late Mahangu Ram

2. Tikam Nishad, aged 30 years, S/o Late Mahangu Ram

3. Mohan Nishad, aged 27 years, S/o Late Mahangu Ram

4. Kuleshwar Nishad, aged 25 years, S/o Late Mahangu Ram

5. Kumari Gayatri Nishad, aged 22 years, D/o Late Mahangu Ram

All above by Caste Kenvat, R/o Village Rouna, Post Kandul, P.S. Arjunda, Tehsil Gundardehi, District Baloud, Chhattisgarh.

(Claimants)

6. Chandan Kumar, aged 32 years, S/o Mohan Lal, R/o Village & Post Sikosa, P.S. & Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Baloud, Chhattisgarh.

(Driver)

7. Laxmi Narayan Sinha, aged 49 years, S/o Late Yadram Sinha, Caste Kalar, R/o Village Chaingunj, Post & P.S. & Tehsil Gundardehi, District Baloud, Chhattisgarh.

(Owner)

--- Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate.

For Respondents : None present, though served.

Single Bench:-

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order on Board

20/03/2026

(MAC Nos.345/2019 & 348/2019)

1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both these

appeals, they were clubbed together and heard analogously and are

being disposed of by this common order.

2. The sole contention that has been raised by Mr. Priyanshu Gupta,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/

Insurance Company is that the offending vehicle did not have the

specific fitness certificate on the date of accident i.e. 27-3-2017,

therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

3. None present for the respondents, though served.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and considered his

submissions and also perused the record with utmost

circumspection.

5. Though plea has been taken by the Insurance Company and witness

Abdul Naeem Khan has been examined to prove the said fact, but the

Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that no document has

been filed to hold that the offending vehicle did not have the specific

fitness certificate on the date of accident. As such, the Insurance

Company could not prove the plea raised by it. However, it is

apparent from the record that the vehicle was insured from 23-2-

2017 to 22-2-2018, whereas the accident took place on 27-3-2017. As

such, the Insurance Company could not prove the fact that the

vehicle did not have effective fitness certificate on the date of

accident.

(MAC Nos.345/2019 & 348/2019)

6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in these two

appeals, they deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed

leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

Soma