1 2025:CGHC:13515 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 764 of 2019 1 - Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Shanti Nagar, Opposite Champa Railway Station, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh............(Insurer of Offending Vehicle Bajaj Motor Cycle No. C. G. 11, A. J. 8793) ... Appellant versus 1 - Ujar Bai, Wd/o Madhu Singh Sidar, Aged About 50 Years, 2 – Parasram, S/o Madhu Singh Sidar, Aged About 32 Years, 3 – Rajkumar, S/o Madhu Singh Sidar, Aged About 30 Years, 4 – Ramprasad, S/o Madhu Singh Sidar, Aged About 28 Years, Respondents No. 1 to 4 are R/o Chuchubhata, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.......(Claimants) 5 - Gitabai D/o Madhu Singh Sidar Aged About 25 Years W/o Ghanshyam Sidar, R/o Dhaurabhata, Tahsil Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh .......(Claimants) 6 - Om Jaiswal, S/o Tejram, Aged About 19 Years,……...(Driver of offending vehicle Bajaj Motor Cycle No. C.G. -11 A.J. 8793) 7 - Tejram Jaiswal S/o Firatram Aged About 55 Years 2 Both respondents No. 6 and 7 are R/o Hasoud, Thana Hasoud, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Jangir Champa Chhattisgarh............(Owner of Offending Vehicle Bajaj Motor Cycle No. C. G. 11, A. J. 8793) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 21/03/2025 1. This appeal is by the insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 10.12.2018 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District- Janjgir – Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 75/2017 awarding total compensation of Rs. 4,26,000/- with interest @ 8% from the date of application i.e. 06.12.2017 till realization fastening liability upon the appellant. 2. As per claim petition, on 28.08.2017, at about 2.45 p.m., the deceased Madhu Singh Sidar was standing near Dev Electronic Shop and asking the address of Doctor Sahu Dabhara, at that time, the non-applicant No. 1/respondent No.6 was going towards Dabhara from Ghoghri side and while driving his Bajaj motor cycle bearing registration No. C.G.-11 A.J. 8793 in a very rash & negligent manner, hit the deceased Madhu Singh Sidar, and as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his body parts and he fell down on the road. Thereafter, he was admitted to Community Health Centre Dabhara, from where, he 3 was referred to the Kirodimal Govt. Hospital Raigarh for better treatment, where he died in the hospital during treatment. At the time of accident, the said vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured with non-applicant No.3/appellant herein. 3. On claim petition filed by the claimants, wife and children of the deceased, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal considering the evidence lead by the parties passed an award as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in overlooking the fact that respondent no. 6 was charged with offences under section 3/181 and 5/181 of Motor Vehicles Act, therefore wrongly held that there is no violation of policy conditions, while deciding issue No. 2 from paras 20 to 24. Appellant appointed Mr. Ajay Nigam on 01.02.2018, who submitted his investigation report on 12.12.2018, has found that there was no valid and effective driving license of respondent No. 6 on the date of accident and learner's license was prepared for the first time on 04.09.2017 i.e. after date of accident 28.08.2017. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 8% per annum which is also on higher side and and the same is liable to be reduced by 6% per annum. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is liable to be exonerated from payment of compensation. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shalimar Chemicals Works Ltd. Vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) & Ors.; 2010 0 Supreme(UK) 558. 4 5. Respondents/claimants filed cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure but when the matter is called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents/claimants. 6. Appellant/insurance company also filed application (I.A. No. 02/2019) under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and produced the investigation report dated 12.12.2018. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case was handed over for investigation to Mr. Ajay Nigam on 01.02.2018 who has submitted his investigation report on 12.12.2018 however, the award was already passed on 10.12.2018 and therefore, the investigation report and particulars of driving license of respondent No.6 could not be filed before the learned Tribunal. The said document is necessary for deciding the award. Therefore, the same may be taken on record for just decision of the appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5 opposed the said application in their reply. 8. Heard counsel for appellant and perused the material available on record. 9. It is clear from record of learned Tribunal that the claimants filed application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act on 06.12.2017. Learned Tribunal issued notice to the respondents and counsel for insurance company appeared before the Tribunal on 23.03.2018. It is clear from record of learned Tribunal that after recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the final award on 10.12.2018. During the pendency of claim petition, the insurance company – appellant/non-applicant No. 3 did not file any investigation report before Tribunal and after passing of the impugned award, insurance company/appellant filed the instant appeal along with 5 application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. In this application, appellant did not explain any reason stating as to why the investigation was not carried out during pendency of claim case. In this regard, issue No.2 was framed by learned Tribunal which reads as under:- ्ቅ. वाद ्ቚश्न निनष्क्ቧ 2. क्या द्ቈ टन क समया अनवादक ्ቅ. 1 ቛኋरा अनवाद ्ቅ. 2 क स्वानिमत्वा क बीनिमत बीजाजा मटरा सयाकल ्ቅ. स जा 11 ए.जा. 8793 क बीम पॉ#लिलस क% शत'( क निवापॉरात पॉरिराचालन करा राहा था ? यानिद हा( त ्ቚभावा ? "्ቚमनि.त नहा/" 10. Learned Tribunal in its award dated 10.12.2018 found in para 23 that non-applicant No.3/Insurance company did not file any oral and documentary evidence which proved that non-applicant No.1/driver was not possessed valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and also no plausible and satisfactory explanation has been offered by the insurance company in support of its application (I.A. No. 02/2019), which leads to rejection of I.A. No. 02/2019 and it is accordingly rejected. 11.Learned Tribunal minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and passed the award accordingly. Hence, this Court finds no substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed which ultimately leads to dismissal of cross objection filed by the claimants being worthy of merit. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV