1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 548 of 2018 Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Through Authorized Signatory Sajit Ku. Ray, Aged About 27 Years, R/o II Floor, Jeet Towers, G.E.Road, Raipur, P.S. Azad Chowk, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.3). ... Appellant. versus 1 - Chedi Lal Sahu S/o Lt. Khelan Sahu Aged About 48 Years. 2 - Smt. Fekan Bai W/o Chedi lal Sahu Aged About 43 Years. Both R/o Village Navagaon, (Mela) P.S. Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No. 1 And 2). 3 - Mahendra Singh S/o Khorbahra Ram Nagvanshi Aged About 41 Years R/o Rajnandgaon, Jamatpara Ward No. 21, P.S. Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.1). 4 - Navneet Singh S/o Gurdeep Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Lalbag, Mig-7, P.S. Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.2) ... Respondents. For Appellant : Shri Palash Agrawal appears on behalf of Shri Shekhar Rao Saheb Amin, Advocates. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.03.18 11:18:02 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board 09/03/2026 1. This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 07.12.2017 passed by the Additional Member of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No.23/14, whereby learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,50,400/- in favour of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2/claimants. The compensation was directed to carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 07.03.2014 till its realization. 2. Facts briefly stated are that the claimants had filed the application under section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with a claim of Rs. 16,40,000/- under different heads for the death of Claimant's son namely Jagendra Sahu caused by the accident. The case of the claimants is that on 11.11.2013, deceased namely Jagendra Sahu was coming after looking his farm while walking on Nawagarh-Mungeli main road. At the same time, the Respondent No.3 herein/Non-applicant No. 1 before the trial Court came from behind driving Truck bearing registration No.CG-04-J-1660 in a rash and negligent driving dashed the deceased from behind and dragged him for about 100 mts. Resulting in his death. The claimants claimed that the deceased died out of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and hence the death has caused them severe mental pain and agony apart 3 from economic loss. It was further averred by the claimants that the deceased was the only bread earner in their house and was earning about Rs. 15000/-per month working in the electricity department. Although no proof of income was produced in support. The age of claimant was claimed to be of 20 years. That it was also averred that the incidence of claim was reported to the Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli and the police has registered a case. Also the driver of the offending vehicle was arrested. That the Non-applicant No. 1 and Non-applicant No. 2 i.e. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively in their reply have denied the averments made in the claim petition and have stated that a false report was filed against the Non-applicant No. 1 and no such accident took place. Further it was averred that the offending vehicle was insured with Non-applicant No.3/appellant herein and hence if any liability is to be incurred it would lie with the Non-applicant No. 3 being the insurer. The present appellant herein (non-applicant no. 3) rebutted the claims and averments made in the application before the trial court and stated that the said vehicle was insured from 17.11.2013 to 16.11.2014 and the accident took place on 11.11.2013. It was vehemently contended by the present appellant that at the time of accident as alleged the dashing vehicle was not covered under the insurance of the appellant and hence the non-applicant no.3/appellant herein must be exonerated by the liability. The present appellant also made claim in the regard that no proof of income is produced by the claimant in this regard. The appellant has also produced the witness in this regard who 4 specifically stated before the learned trial court that the policy produced is not valid at the time of incidence and according to the records of the company, the policy was covered for the other date rather than the date shown on the covernote of the policy produced. That the learned trial court overlooked the contentions made by the present appellant and has passed the award in favour of the claimant answering the questions of trial as: 1. Whether the non-applicant no.1/Respondent No.3 driver of the dashing vehicle dashed the deceased by driving rashly and negligently and caused his death?, Yes, proved. 2. Whether the vehicle causing accident insured with the present appellant was under the usage of Respondent No.3 and 4 performing breach of policy?, Not proved. 3. Whether the Respondent No.3 and 4 and appellant are liable to pay compensation to the claimants, if yes then from whom and how much?, Yes, Rs.7,50,400/- jointly and separately and the primary liability lies with the Non-applicant No. 3/appellant herein (Insurance Company). 4. Cost of suit and help according to the clause 31 of the impugned award. That the learned trial court while recording the above mentioned findings, awarded the claimant a compensation for death under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and ordered as aforementioned. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was not insured by the Insurance Company, therefore, Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 5 4. No one appears on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available with the appeal. 6. From the perusal of record, it appears that the offending vehicle (Truck bearing registration No.CG-04-J-1660) was insured by the appellant- Insurance Company from 17.11.2013 to 16.11.2014, however, document i.e. policy certificate (Ex.D/1) goes to show that the vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company from 09.11.2013 to 08.11.2014 i.e. at the time of accident on 11.11.2013 and the appellant/insurance company has not filed its reply with regard to the fact that Policy certificate (Ex.D/1) is a forged one. 7. In order to prove that at the time of accident on 11.11.2013, offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant-Insurance company, the Insurance company brought its witness namely Sanjit Rai (NAW-1) who deposed that according to proposal form of Policy (Ex.D/3), Policy (Ex.D/2) was valid from 17.11.2013 to 16.11.2014 and accident occuring prior to the said date will not be covered under the Policy (Ex.D/2). This witness however admits that the insurance work is also done through agents and as regards the question of Policy (Ex.D/1) being forged, no complaint has been made thereof. This witness also admits that he is not aware about the fact that the cheque with regard to the account in India Overseas Bank belongs to whom, which has been produced along with Proposal form of Policy ( Ex.D/3). 6 8. Further, the contention raised by the Insurance Company that the said policy (Ex.D/1) is fake one, has not been proved by the Insurance Company/appellant which has been categorically observed and held by the Tribunal at paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the impugned award. 9. As such, it appears that the appellant/Insurance Company has failed to prove that the Insurance Policy was a fake one and the trial Court has rightly considered the said aspect after perusing the evidence of the witnesses of Insurance Company. 10.In the result, this Appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed while upholding the impugned award. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash