1 / 6 2025:CGHC:28082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 665 of 2019 • Ranjit Singh S/o Dharam Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Singh Transport Services, Ring Road No.1, Tatibandh, Raipur Tehsil and District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o B. 16/10, Udya Society, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tehsil And Disrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh..............(Owner of Vehicle Truck No. C.G./04-J/0391). --- Appellant/Non- applicant No. 2 versus 1. Ashok Kumar Rai Shri R. P. Rai Aged About 37 Years 2. Aditya Rai S/o Ashok Kumar Rai Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Father Ashok Kumar Rai, S/o Late R. P. Ra 3. Ku. Aditi Rai D/o Ashok Kumar Rai Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Father Ashok Kumar Rai, S/o Late R. P. Rai, All are R/o Qr. No.-P.W.D. 141, Bhilai Nagar, Thana Bhilai Bhatti, Tehsil And Disrtict- Durg, Chhattisgarh (applicants/ claimants) 4. Pankaj Singh S/o Gopal Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Pinda Kala, Thana Hantarganj, Disrtict Chatra (Jharkhand) Presently R/o Lavan Road, Behind Gayatri Mandir, House Of Javed Ansari, Baloda Bazar, Raipur, Thana City Kotwali Tehsil And District- Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh.............(Non- applicant No. 2/ Driver of Vehicle Truck No. C.G./04/J/0391) 5. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office-03, R.K. Plaza, Panchpedinaka, Ring Road No.1, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh And Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Parmanand Bhawan, Near Rajendra Park, Durg, Tehsil And Disrtict- Durg, Chhattisgarh............(Non- applicant No. 3 Insurer of Vehicle Truck No. C.G./04-J/0391) --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Adv., Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Shokie Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 26/06/2025 1. Appellant-owner of offending vehicle has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the award dated 05.01.2019 passed by Learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 14/2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicants/ Respondents No. 1 to 3-claimants under Section 166 r/w Section 140 of the Act, 1988 in part, awarded total sum of ₹ 10,22,000/- as compensation, fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon owner, driver of the offending vehicle. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 13.05.2014 at about 9.15 p.m., Smt. Sudha Rai was travelling on a scooty sitting behind with her husband and children, when they reached near Bajrang Chowk Baloda Bazar, non-applicant no. 1 driving a truck bearing no. CG-04-J-0391 rashly and negligently dashed scooty from behind due to which riders of the scooty fell down. In the said accident, Smt. Sudha Rai suffered head injuries and died on the spot. The information of the said accident was given to Police Station-City Kotwali, District-Baloda Bazar, based on which Crime No. 222/14 was registered against non-applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 4 for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC. 3. Applicants/ Respondents No. 1 to 3, who are husband and children of deceased Smt. Sudha Rai, filed an application under Section 166 r/w 140 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 26,85,000/- based on the pleadings made therein. 3 / 6 4. Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 2 -owner of the offending truck submitted his reply to the claim application and pleaded that no accident happened with offending truck. The truck was being driven following the traffic rules and provisions of Act of 1988. On the date of accident, driver of offending truck was possessed with valid and effective driving licence. It is stated that the offending truck on the date of accident was being insured with non-applicant No. 3/ Respondent No. 5. Thus, the insurance company of the offending truck would be liable for paying compensation, if any. 5. Respondent No. 5/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that information about the accident has not been given by the insured. On the date of the accident, the applicants themselves crossing the road from the opposite direction at the square, met with accident. There was no fault of non-applicant No. 1. The amount of compensation sought by the applicants is highly exaggerated. Non-applicant no. 1 driver of offending truck did not have a valid driving licence on the date of accident and in the seizure memo also no driving licence has been seized from the driver. Thus, the offending truck was being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Smt. Sudha Rai died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck driven by non-applicant No. 1/ respondent No. 4. Contributory negligence was not found to be proved, the offending vehicle was driven in breach of policy conditions, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 10,22,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application and fastened primary liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicants No. 1 & 2/ driver and owner of offending truck. 4 / 6 7. Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel for appellant-owner of offending truck would submit that to exonerate the insurance company from its liability, learned Claims Tribunal has taken note of copy of particulars of licence issued by the RTO, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) without there being evidence of officer/ authority who issued the particulars. It is contention of learned counsel for appellant that until and unless document is proved by cogent evidence, its content cannot be taken into consideration as proof of the fact and therefore the finding of the Claims Tribunal is erroneous. 8. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5/ Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that insurance company collected particulars of licence and produced it before Claims Tribunal in evidence which was issued by the RTO, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). It is the onus upon the driver and owner of the vehicle to produce copy of licence before the Claims Tribunal or before the police during course of investigation in criminal case. Even for the sake of argument, if this contention is accepted that the particulars of licence has erroneously been considered, in absence of any proof of document with respect to licence of Respondent No. 4/ non-applicant No. 1, it is for the driver and owner of offending truck to prove the fact that he was possessed with the effective driving licence. He also referred to provisions of Section 134(c) of the Act of 1988. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in MAC No. 356 of 2015 between Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ranjeet Toppo and others decided on 28.01.2021. 9. Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4/ claimants would submit that if this Court dismisses the appeal filed by the owner then direction be issued to insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same. 5 / 6 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 11. Upon query made to learned counsel for appellant whether driver or owner submitted copy of licence before Tribunal or Police, he submits that no such document/ proceedings are available in record of claim case. 12. From the fair submission made by learned counsel for appellant, it is apparent that the owner and driver failed to produce copy of licence, either before police or Tribunal. The record of claim case would show that upon production of the documents, police during investigation of the crime has seized RC book of the truck bearing No. CG04-J-0391, fitness certificate, permit and insurance papers. During course of investigation, police seized one truck bearing No. CG04-J-0391 from the non-applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 4, however, he has not produced the driving licence in his name. 13. The provision under Section 134(C) of the Act of 1988 deals with Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person; relevant clause of said section is extracted below for ready reference. “When any person is injured or any property of a third party is damaged, as a result of an accident in which a motor vehicle is involved, the driver of the vehicle or other person in charge of the vehicle shall-- (a) x x x x (b) x x x x (c) give the following information in writing to the insurer, who has issued the certificates of insurance, about the occurrence of the accident, namely:--- (i) insurance policy number and period of its validity; (ii) date, time and place of accident; (iii) particulars of the persons injured or killed in the accident; (iv) name of the driver and the particulars of his driving licence.” 6 / 6 14. Perusal of aforementioned provision would show that duty is cast upon the driver to give information in writing to the insurer about name of driver and the particulars of his driving licence. Immediately after the accident, on the basis of report, police investigated the matter. The vehicle and other papers of the vehicle have been seized from the driver and owner of the offending truck, none of them has produced copy of driving licence of non-applicant- 1. 15. Even if the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant is to be taken into consideration that the particulars of driving licence produced by the insurance company has not been proved in accordance with law then also even if the particulars of licence as produced by the insurance company for the time being is kept aside, then in absence of particulars of licence of driver submitted by the driver or owner, it will be deemed that on the date of accident the vehicle was being driven by a person not holding valid and effective driving licence. 16. Claims Tribunal in its award considered that after completion of investigation, police submitted Final report for alleged commission of offence under Section 3/181 of the Act of 1988 also, which is for driving the vehicle without licence and after recording a finding that the offending truck was being driven by the person not holding valid and effective driving licence has held that the offending truck was being plied in breach of policy conditions and exonerated the insurance company from its liability. The said finding in the facts of the case cannot be said to be erroneous. 17. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn