1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 34 of 2023 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through- Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-Bramh Road Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Ganesh Singh S/o - Beer Singh Aged About 30 Years Village - Mahuapara, Police Station And Tahsil - Sonhat, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Alendra @ Alen Chudhary S/o - Late Sundarsai Chuodhari Aged About 37 Years R/o - Village- Belia, Police Station- Sonhat, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh (Driver). 3 - Pramod Sonwani S/o Radheram Sonwani Aged About 33 Years R/o - Village- Salganwa Khutrapara, Police Station- Sonhat, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh (Owner). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/02/2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the award dated 10/10/2022, RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea(C.G.), in Claim Case No. 06/2020, (between the parties Ganesh Singh Vs. Alendra @ Alen Choudhari & Ors.), against the Petitioner Insurance Company, may kindly be set aside holding it bad and illegal in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 31.07.2018, he was proceeding towards Kesgawan along with his cousin brother on a motorcycle, and when they reached near Kesgawan School, Non-Applicant No. 1, while driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant’s motorcycle, as a result of which the claimant sustained serious injuries; consequently, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 7,35,000/- against the Non- Applicants. That, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, after entering appearance before the learned Tribunal, failed to appear on 13.04.2022, and therefore, the proceedings were conducted ex parte against them. That, the Appellant Insurance Company, in its written statement, denied the averments made in the claim petition and specifically contended that Respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and that the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and on these grounds prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against it. That, upon conclusion of the trial/inquiry, the learned Tribunal awarded 3 a total compensation of Rs. 74,184/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization in favour of the claimant and against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the Appellant jointly and severally. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant–Insurance Company submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is wholly bad in law and contrary to the material available on record. It is contended that respondent No. 2, the rider of the offending motorcycle, and respondent No. 3, the owner thereof, failed to appear before the learned Tribunal and did not discharge their burden of proving that respondent No. 2 was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, nor did they establish that the vehicle was being driven in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further submitted that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, which has not been properly appreciated. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Ors., decided on 19.01.2018 and reported in 2018 (1) TAC 360 (SC), it is argued that the Insurance Company becomes liable only after foundational facts are duly pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle. In the present case, since Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to prove that the offending vehicle was being driven by a duly licensed driver in compliance 4 with the policy conditions, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn that Respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have exonerated the applicant–Insurance Company from liability to pay compensation. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled legal position, the impugned award is illegal, unsustainable, and liable to be set aside qua the applicant Insurance Company. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the submissions advanced and on perusal of the record, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has awarded a just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 74,184/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The contention of the appellant–Insurance Company regarding absence of a valid and effective driving licence and alleged breach of policy conditions has not been substantiated by cogent and reliable evidence so as to warrant its exoneration from liability. Mere non- appearance of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the Tribunal does not, by itself, absolve the insurer of its statutory liability, particularly when the Insurance Company failed to discharge its burden in accordance with law. The plea of contributory negligence has also not been established. The judgment relied 5 upon by the appellant does not advance its case in the facts and circumstances of the present matter. 6. Accordingly, the impugned award does not suffer from any illegality or perversity requiring interference by this Court. The appeal, being devoid of substance, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat