1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 462 of 2017 1 - Kamta Prasad Sahu S/o Late Shri Sonai Ram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Ketka Road Manpur, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ................Owner Of The Offending Vehicle/ Non- Claimant No.2, … Appellant versus 1 - Brijendra Lal Sahu S/o Bali Ram Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Barpara, Post Patrapali, P.S. And Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimant, Chhattisgarh 2 - Lallu Yadav S/o Shivfal Ram Yadav, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Davna, Post Patrapali, Shrinagar P.S. And Tehsil Ramanujnagar Shrinagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver Of The Offending Vehicle/ Non-Claimant No.1, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Near Kumkum Hotel, Bramha Road Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle/ Non-Claimant No.3, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 :- Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 25.07.2025 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 23.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Baikunthpur, District Koriya in Claim Case No. 46/2013, whereby compensation of ₹2,78,800/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of Respondent No. 1/claimant for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident dated 25.07.2012 involving the bus bearing registration no. CG15-A-7481 (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle) owned by the appellant. 2. As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 25.07.2012, the claimant was riding his motorcycle (Platina CG16-D- 9176) along with a pillion rider, Bechuram Pando, while returning from Village Ghunchapara, P.S. Ramanujnagar. At around 9:30 A.M., near Kudeli Harijanpara, the offending vehicle owned by the appellant and driven by Respondent No. 2 dashed with the claimant’s motorcycle. The accident occurred due to the alleged rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.2/driver of offending vehicle, resulting in multiple injuries to the claimant. At the time of the accident, the claimant was employed as a Shikshakarmi Grade-II at Government Middle School, Chopan, Block Baikunthpur, earning ₹11,493/- per month. The appellant, who is the owner of the offending bus, denied any negligence and contested the claim. The claimant sought compensation of ₹14,00,000/- for loss of earning capacity and medical expenses. However, the learned Tribunal, after framing six issues, held the appellant liable to payment compensation to the claimant and awarded compensation of 3 ₹2,78,800/- with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, fastening the liability jointly and severally upon Non-Applicants No. 1 and 2, i.e., the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, while exonerating Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, has wrongly fastened liability upon the owner of the offending vehicle. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is excessive. He also submits that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company. Therefore, the insurer, i.e., Respondent No. 3, alone is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company submits that, at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being operated without a valid fitness certificate, which constitutes a breach of the insurance policy. He further submits that this Court, in MAC No. 1289/2014, vide judgment dated 19.11.2020, has held that the operation of a transport vehicle without a fitness certificate results in a breach of the policy and that liability shall be fastened upon the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the non-applicants Nos. 1 & 2. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4 6. Upon perusal of the record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is noted that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence and framing the issues, rightly held the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle liable on the ground of the driver’s negligence. The contents of the FIR and the testimony of the eye-witness also support the claimant’s version of the accident. Moreover, the appellant failed to produce any cogent evidence to rebut the allegation of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle or to establish contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Besides the above, the compensation awarded is modest and reasonable, considering the claimant’s injuries and loss of income. 7. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal requires no interference. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha