-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1840 of 2024 1 - Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Parmanand Building, Before Rajendra Park, G.E Road, Durg (C.G.),...(Non-Applicant No. 3) ... Appellant versus 1 - Santram Alias Bholaram S/o Manohar Lal Sahu Aged About 53 Years Cast - Sahu, Resident Of Village Tengana Barpara, Thana Gurur, District Balod (C.G.),..(Applicant No. 1) 2 - Smt. Urmila Bai Sahu W/o Santram Alias Bholaram Sahu Aged About 46 Years Cast - Sahu, Resident Of Village Tengana Barpara, Thana Gurur, District Balod (C.G.),...(Applicant No. 2) 3 - Dhaneshwar Thakur S/o Dhalsingh Thakur Aged About 24 Years Cast - Halba, R/o Dhobanpuri, Thana And Tehsil Gurud, District Balod, (C.G.), (Driver Of The Offending Motorcycle No. C.G. 24 - N - 0676) 4 - Dhalsingh Thakur S/o Motiram Thakur Aged About 47 Years Cast - Halba, R/o Dhobanpuri, Thana And Tehsil Gurud, District Balod (C.G.), (Owner Of The Offending Motorcycle No. C.G. 24 - N - 0676) ... Respondents For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate For respondents No.1 & 2 : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate For respondents No.3 & 4 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.02.2026 1) Heard. 2) The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under -2- Section 173 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Act challenging the liability part against the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Claim Case No.127/2021 dated 20.06.2024 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.7,43,376/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Sanatram Sahu @ Sanatram. 3) The facts in brief are that on 31.01.2021, the deceased Sanatram Sahu along with his younger brother Janak Ram Sahu were going to Village Gurur on motorcycle and when they reached on National Highway No.30, a motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.24/N/0676 coming from opposite direction dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, resultantly, Sanatram Sahu @ Sanatram sustained injuries and succumbed to death whereas Janak Ram Sahu sustained serious injuries including fracture of skull bone. 4) The claimants who are parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein, they pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 25 years and earning Rs.300/- per month. They claimed a sum of Rs.4,18,30,000/-. 5) The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their reply and pleaded that the deceased Sanatram was negligent and the claimants have exaggerated the amount of compensation. 6) The Insurance Company also filed reply and took a plea that the driver of -3- the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence. Learned Tribunal framed issues; parties led evidence and thereafter award was passed. 7) Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that driving licence of rider of the offending vehicle was not seized by police. He would further submit that father of the rider of the offending vehicle namely Dhaneshwar Thakur admitted in evidence that in said accident, he also suffered injuries. This witness also admitted that on the date of accident, he did not have valid driving licence and an offence was registered in this regard against him. Mr. Tiwari would contend that as there was no driving licence with rider of the offending motorbike, learned Tribunal should have fastened liability with the owner of offending motorbike. He would submit that the award passed by the learned Tribunal may be set aside. 8) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tiwari. They would submit that the Insurance company failed to prove the fact that driver did not have valid and effective driving licence. They would further submit that the Insurance Company failed to examine any officer from office of Regional Transport to prove the fact that on the date of accident, rider of the offending motorbike did not have valid driving licence. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has considered this issue at length and decided it against the Insurance Company. They would further submit -4- that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10) Admittedly, the police did not seize driving licence of offending motorbike from its driver. In evidence, Dhaneshwar Thakur and Sanatram admitted the fact that on the date of accident, rider of the motorbike did not have valid driving licence but to prove this fact, the Insurance Company failed to examine official from office of Regional Transport. Learned Tribunal while dealing with this issue categorically recorded a finding that the Insurance Company failed to prove this fact. 11) The final report would show that the offence punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was registered against the rider of the motorbike but despite knowledge of this fact, the Insurance Company did not make any effort to prove the fact that rider of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence and failed to examine any official from Regional Transport Office. 12) Deepak Razak, the Assistant Manager (NAW-1) in cross-examination admitted that no inquiry was conducted with regard to driving licence of rider of the offending bike. He further admitted that no inquiry was conducted with regard to accident. The Insurance Company utterly failed to produce any document to establish the fact that on the date of -5- accident, the rider of the motorbike had no driving licence. 13) Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and the facts discussed-above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha