1 2025:CGHC:42208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 486 of 2018 1 - Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Through Authorized Signatory Sajit Ku. Ray, Aged About 27 Years R/o Ii Floor, Jeet Towers, Ge Road, Raiupr, P.S. Azad Chowk, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Seema Chuhan W/o W/o Lt. Bhavan Kumar Chauhan, Aged About 32 Years R/o Phokatpara, Sai Nagar, Ward No. 11, Padampur Road, Basna, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mohit Ram Chauhan S/o S/o Lt. Sundar Singh Chauhan Aged About 52 Years R/o Phokatpara, Sai Nagar, Ward No. 11, Padampur Road, Basna, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shantibai Chauhan W/o W/o Mohit Ram Chauhan Aged About 48 Years R/o Phokatpara, Sai Nagar, Ward No. 11, Padampur Road, Basna, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Minor Pankaj Chauhan S/o S/o Lt. Bhavan Kumar Chauhan Aged About 10 Years Mother Seema Chauhan For Minor R/o Phokatpara, Sai Nagar, Ward No. 11, Padampur Road, Basna, Tahsil Basna, District Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Minor Sushant Chauhan S/o S/o Lt. Bhavan Kumar Chauhan Aged About 6 Years Mother Seema Chauhan For Minor R/o Phokatpara, Sai Nagar, Ward No. 11, Padampur Road, Basna, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shiv Kumar Mirgha S/o S/o Bindalal Mirgha Aged About 25 Years R/o Ravidas Nagar Ward No. 13, Arang, Tahsil And P.S. Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Non Applicant No. 1), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Md. Kadir S/o S/o Md. Kasim Ali Aged About 40 Years R/o Sheetalapara, Arang, P.S. Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Non Applicant No. 2), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shekhar Rao Saheb Amin, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 6 : None. For Respondent(s) No. 7 : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/08/2025 1. The present is an Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 1.5.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No. H- 101/2015, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of respondents No. 1 to 5 herein. 3 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming to the tune of Rs. 29,44,000/- under various heads for the death of the deceased caused by a road accident. The claimant has stated that on 22.06.2015, at around 5:00 PM, the deceased was returning from Raipur to Basna when the vehicle driven by non- applicant No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the deceased, causing grievous injuries that resulted in his death on the spot. The claimant contended that the death was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No. 1, which caused them severe mental pain, agony, and economic loss. It was further averred that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family, earning approximately Rs. 9,000/- per day as a driver, although no documentary proof of income was provided, the deceased was claimed to be 35 years old. The incident was reported to the police, who registered a case, arrested the driver, and the claimant appeared before the Magistrate. Non-applicants No. 1 and No. 2 denied the allegations, stating that the driver held a valid license and that the vehicle was insured with non- applicant No. 3, who would be liable if any compensation arose. The present appellant (Non-applicant No. 3) rebutted these claims, asserting that the vehicle was not insured with them at the time of the accident, no premiums were paid, and therefore 4 they should be exonerated from liability. The appellant also argued that no proof of income was produced by the claimant, that Non-applicant No. 1 did not hold a valid license (breach of policy conditions), and that the actual owner and insurer of the vehicle were not made parties, rendering the petition not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties. Despite these contentions, the learned trial court passed an award in favor of the claimant, recording the findings that Non-applicant No. 1, as owner and driver, caused the death of the deceased due to rash and negligent driving, that the deceased earned Rs. 5,000/- per month as a driver, that the vehicle was insured with the present appellant without any breach of policy conditions, and that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- jointly and severally from the non-applicants, along with other reliefs and costs as per the trial court’s order under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company respectfully submits that the impugned award passed by the learned trial Court is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable, being contrary to the facts and materials on record, and is based on conjectures, surmises, and improper appreciation of evidence. He further submits that the learned trial Court committed material illegality in exercising its jurisdiction by failing to properly evaluate 5 the evidence, overlooking material omissions and contradictions in witness statements, and erroneously holding that the insurance constituted a valid certificate for the vehicle in question, despite the fact that the premium had not been duly paid, the cover note was obtained through forged documents of the previous year’s policy, and the vehicle was not validly covered. Further, the tribunal failed to note that the driver/non- applicant was not in possession of a valid license, constituting a breach of the insurance policy and disentitling the claimant from any recovery. In light of these material irregularities, omissions and contradictions, the impugned award suffers from substantial illegality and warrants being set aside, and the appellant/insurance company ought to be fully exonerated from liability. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 opposes the same. 5. None for respondents No. 1 to 6. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, the appeal filed by the insurance company is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The claimant had approached the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of the deceased caused by the rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No. 1. The 6 learned trial Court, after careful evaluation of the evidence, found that the deceased, a driver and the sole breadwinner of the family, suffered a sudden and untimely death, and that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant/insurance company at the relevant time, without any breach of policy conditions. Despite the appellant’s contentions regarding non- payment of premiums, forged documents, and invalid insurance, the Tribunal thoroughly examined the submissions and record, including the claimant’s pleadings, police report, and evidence on record, and rightly concluded that the appellant was liable to compensate the claimant. The insurance company failed to substantiate its allegations of material irregularity, non-coverage, or breach of policy conditions in a manner sufficient to overturn the Tribunal’s findings. No ground has been made out to interfere with the well-reasoned award, which is neither arbitrary nor contrary to law. In view of the above, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed, with the award of the Tribunal upheld in its entirety. 7. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/insurance company is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat