1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 454 of 2019 United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory United India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (N.A. No. 3), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Gouri Bai W/o Shri Mayaram Gond (Maravi) Aged About 45 Years By Caste, R/o Village Hardikala, Post - Hardikala Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Mayaram Gond (Maravi) S/o Shri Sukhram Gond Aged About 50 Years By Caste, R/o Village Hardikala, Post - Hardikala Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Rajkumar S/o Mayaram Gond (Maravi) Aged About 14 Years Through Natural Guardian Father Mayaram Gond (Maravi) Aged 50 Yrs, S/o Shri Sukhram Gond, By Caste, R/o Village Hardikala, Post - Hardikala Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Santosh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Pardeshiram Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Village And Post Devkirari P.S. And Tehsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle Hyva Truck No. U.P. - 78 /c.N./4918) Note (Wrongly Written Owner), District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - M/s Nehapreet Constructions Private Limited R/o N.A.C. - 30 Aavas Vikas Colony Etawah U.P. Other Address U/c Mr. Saroj Yadav 1651 Badasarohi New Shivali Road, Kalyanpur Kanpur (U.P.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Hyva Truck No. U.P. - 78/c.N./4918). (Owner), District : Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate on behalf SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 Mr. BN Nade, Advocate For Respondents : None through served. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 09.04.2026 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant- Insurance Company is calling in question legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dt. 06.11.2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.7,10,400/- upon them. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant- Insurance Company, as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to ply the same on the date of offence. As such, since the offending vehicle was plied in breach of the policy condition, therefore, the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal while fastening the liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation is liable to be set aside and present appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. None appeared on behalf of the respondents though served. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, after perusal of the record, it is quite clear that though the appellant- Insurance Company took plea that the driver of 3 the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to ply the same on the date of accident in Para-11 of their written statement, but no evidence has been led to substantiate the said fact and, as such, the learned Claims Tribunal categorically observed that since it is not proved by the insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the same on the date of accident, therefore breach of policy condition is not established and, consequently, proceeded to fasten the liability upon the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants. As such, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings of the learned claims tribunal in fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the insurance company, as the same is correct findings of facts based on evidence available on record. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal warranting interference of this Court and, therefor, the same is hereby dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if