1 / 6 2025:CGHC:32223 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 856 of 2020 • Nakul Rajak S/o Chintaram Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Imam Bada, Simga Tehsil- Simga District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) --- Appellant/ non-applicant No. 2 versus 1. Vimla W/o Late Vishnu Dhruv Aged About 45 Years 2. Minor Dilesh Dhruv S/o Late Vishnu Dhruv Aged About 17 Years Minors Through Natural Guardian Mother Vimla 3. Minor Jhamin Dhruv S/o Late Vishnu Dhruv Aged About 14 Years Minors Through Natural Guardian Mother Vimla 4. Minor Meelu Dhruv S/o Late Vishnu Dhruv Aged About 11 Years Minors Through Natural Guardian Mother Vimla 5. Minor Kamini Dhruv D/o Late Vishnu Dhruv Aged About 10 Years Minors Through Natural Guardian Mother Vimla All are R/o Village- Chorbhatti Tehsil And District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., …...applicants/claimants 6. Parbat Bai W/o Late Bishnu Dhruv Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Chorbhatti Tehsil And District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.(non-applicant No. 4) 7. Santosh Dhruv S/o Late Vishnu Dhruv Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Chorbhatti Tehsil And District- Bemetara, C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (non-applicant No. 5) 8. Santosh Nishad R/o Shankar Nagar Aged About 37 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Simga Tehsil- Simga, District- Balodabazar, (C.G.), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh (non-applicant No. 1) 9. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Office- D.O.-1, Madina Manjil, Kachahri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, C.G. (non- applicant No. 3) ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 9 : Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 11/07/2025 1. Appellant-owner of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the award dated 28.03.2019 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 06/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 8,13,000/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 22.09.2017 Vishnu Dhruw riding on motorcycle as pillion rider driven by his friend Lalit Sahu was returning to his village Bemetara. In the evening at about 06:50 pm, when they stopped at a shop of Manoj Verma near Gunarbod, Bemetara- Simga main road, at that relevant time a mini bus No. CG05 C 7815 (hereinafter referred to as “offending bus”) driven by non-applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle and caused accident. In the accident, Vishnu Dhruw suffered grievous injuries over his body including head injury. He was admitted to Khushi Hospital, Tilda on 24.09.2017. He died on 04.10.2017. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 5/ applicants-claimants who are widow and children of deceased- Vishnu Dhruw filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 20,00,000/- on the grounds pleaded therein. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their reply to the application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that the non-applicant No. 1 driver of offending bus was not driving the offending bus rashly and negligently. The accident occurred due to negligence of driver of motorcycle. It was stated that on the date of accident, 3 / 6 non-applicant No. 1 was possessed with valid and effective driving licence and the offending bus was insured by non-applicant No. 3. 5. Respondent No. 9/ 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 on the date of accident the offending bus was plying in breach of policy conditions, driver of the offending bus was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence as also there was no valid permit and fitness certificate. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased -Vishnu Dhruw died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending bus owned by non-applicant No. 2 and driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 8,13,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization, exonerated the insurance company from its liability, and directed to pay and recover from the owner of offending vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-owner would submit that the appellant has filed this appeal only challenging the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal of exonerating the Insurance Company on the ground that non-applicant No. 1/ driver of offending bus was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence. He submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in not considering to prove breach of insurance policy conditions on the ground that driver was not having valid licence taken by the Respondent No. 9-Insurance Company, has not produced any evidence and therefore the said finding is erroneous. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 9-Insurance Company would submit that it is for the claimants to produce copy of licence and only thereafter the 4 / 6 onus to prove the said document to be forged/ fabricated or not valid will shift upon the insurance company. In absence of production of any such document, the Claims Tribunal justified in recording a finding that on the date of accident non-applicant No. 1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending bus. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. The pleadings made in the claim application is that when the deceased stopped near shop of Manoj Verma to purchase some articles, at that relevant time offending bus driven by non-applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently dashed him, resulting in death of deceased Vishnu Dhruw. The accident was reported, based on which criminal case was also registered against driver of offending bus. On the date of accident, vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No. 1-Santosh Nishad. During investigation, police seized the offending bus as also the documents produced by non-applicant No. 1 (driver) ie., RC book, copy of insurance policy covering the risk for the period from 02.05.2017 to 01.05.2018, fitness certificate and permit. He also produced copy of licence in which the date is mentioned as 26.08.1992 to 25.08.1995. Non-applicant No. 1 though appeared through the advocate before the Claims Tribunal, also submitted reply, however, has not produced copy of driving licence valid and effective on the date of accident. 11. Claims Tribunal in para-10 of the award has considered the issue as to whether on the date of accident, offending bus was driven by non-applicant No. 1 in breach of policy conditions, wherein it is observed that the criminal case was also registered against non-applicant No. 1 and 2 for offence under Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the Act of 1988 which is for the offence of driving the motor vehicle without valid and effective driving licence. It is also observed that to prove the fact that on the date of accident, non-applicant No. 5 / 6 1 driver of offending bus was having valid and effective driving licence, the burden is upon non-applicant No. 1 in which he utterly failed to produce valid and effective driving licence, on the date of accident authorizing him to drive offending bus. Before this Court also except the submission that the burden to prove the fact that non-applicant No. 1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence was upon the Respondent no. 9-Insurance company, no other submission has been made. 12. Provision under Section 134(c) of the Act of 1988 mandates the driver of the offending vehicle to produce details of the accident, insurance policy and also name and particulars of driving licence. Relevant provision is extracted below for ready reference: “134. Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person. “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. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section the expression driver includes the owner of the vehicle.” 13. In the case at hand, the driver has not submitted the particulars of licence and name of driver of the vehicle involved in accident. 14. In the aforementioned facts of the case, evidence available on record, I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the award passed by the Claims Tribunal recording a finding that non-applicant No. 1 drove the offending bus in breach 6 / 6 of insurance policy conditions on the date of accident because he was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence. The said finding is on appreciation of evidence available on record, hence, it does not call for any interference. 15. For the foregoing discussion, the appeal being sans merit which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn