1 MAC No. 414 of 2022 2025:CGHC:39615 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 414 of 2022  Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, M.B. Trade Center 2nd floor, Balak Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of offending Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C.G.-04-T-0965). ... Appellant versus 1. Girjashankar Sahu S/o Chhabil Ram Sahu, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Gopalpuri, Tahsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. … (Claimant) 2. Dewanand Sahu S/o Gaindu Ram Sahu, aged about 21 years, R/o Village Puri, Tahsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver Cum Owner Of Offending Vehicle Jeep Bearing Registration No. C.G.-04-T-0965). ... Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 :- Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Sudhir Sahu, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 07.08.2025 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.08.13 17:32:31 +0530 2 MAC No. 414 of 2022 1988”) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 24.11.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 119/2019, by which the Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company to pay compensation of 2,47,800/- along ₹ with the interest to the claimant. 2. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have the license to drive the vehicle. He would also submit that the driver also did not have the permit to ply the vehicle, as such, the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and condition of the insurance policy, therefore, the Insurance Company/appellant herein is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. Thus, the instant appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. Mr. Kunal Das and Mr. Sudhir Sahu, learned counsels for the respondents, would oppose the prayer made by 3 MAC No. 414 of 2022 learned counsel for the appellant and support the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 5. The Claims Tribunal with regard to driving license has clearly recorded a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle did have the valid license to drive Motor Cycle, LMV and LMVCAB. The Claims Tribunal has further recorded a finding that the unladen weight of the offending vehicle was less than 3000 kg which comes under the LMVCAB, as such, the driver did have the valid license at the time of accident in question. 6. So far as the permit is concerned, though in the written statement, the Insurance Company had taken a specific plea, but on appreciation of the evidence of Suresh Kumar Yadu (NAW-4), the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the Insurance Company has failed to establish that permit was not issued to the owner/driver of the offending vehicle at the time of 4 MAC No. 414 of 2022 accident to ply it and the Insurance Company has also failed to provide any documentary and oral evidence in that regard. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, I hereby affirm the said finding of the Claims Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit