1 2025:CGHC:22919 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 430 of 2018 1 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301-302, Corporate House, 169 Rnt Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (M.P.), District : Indore, Madhya Pradesh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Mainabai W/o Late Tijelal Kanwar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Maharajpur, P.O. Chichola, P.S. And Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Anjali D/o Late Tijelal Kanwar Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Mainabai, R/o Village Maharajpur, P.O. Chichola, P.S. And Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3 - Ashok Yadav S/o Gangasagar Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Dal Chhapra, P.S. Rewati, District Baliya (U.P.), Presently R/o Village Indamara, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dhruv Sonthaliya S/o A. Sonthaliya, R/o 135, Acr Avenue, 4th Floor, Room No.39, Post Barabazar, Kolkata (West Bengal) (Owner), District : Kolkata, West Bengal. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Deepak Diwakar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/06/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 21/2015 (“Smt. Mainabai & Another vs. Ashok Yadav & Ors.”) whereby an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- with interest 3 @ 6% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the wife and daughter of the deceased for their irreparable loss. 2. Facts of the case, is that, respondents No. 1 and 2 are wife and daughter of deceased Tijelal Kanwar, who filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that on 06.11.2014 at about 6:00 a.m., while the deceased was attending the call, he was hit by a truck container bearing registration No. WB-15/A-9355, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 3, resulting in fatal injuries. The claimants stated that the deceased was aged about 49 years old and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month as a labourer in ABIS factory, and sought compensation of Rs. 18,50,000/-. The insurance company (appellant) filed a written statement contending that the vehicle was being driven without a valid driving license, permit, or fitness, and that the accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 11.01.2018, partly allowed the claim, holding the accident was solely due to the negligent driving of respondent No. 3, that no breach of insurance policy conditions was established, and awarded compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- with 6% interest per annum. The appellant has challenged the award, contending that fastening liability on the insurer is illegal and unsustainable. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that driving license 4 was fake and it was obtained from Nagaland and from the driving license number itself it is apparent that it is was fake one. However, upon query learned counsel for the appellant submits that it could not be established by cogent evidence that the driving license was fake but from the copy of driving license it is well established that the driving license was fake one. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the claimants submits that since the insurance company has failed to establish this fact that the driving license was fake one, therefore, no benefit can be granted to the insurance company and as such the breach as contemplated under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act cannot be granted to the appellant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering this fact that driving license No. 109303/NW/Prof/09 issued by the RTO, Nagaland could not be established to be fake one and fraudulent document by the insurance company inspite of efforts made by the insurance company as such in view of the said it cannot be established that there was breach of insurance policy as the driver was carrying fake and fabricated driving license which has not been established. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, there is no merit 5 in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the instant MAC is hereby dismissed. 9. The record of the Tribunal along with copy of this order be sent back forthwith for the information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat