1 2025:CGHC:30874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 839 of 2020 1 - Branch Manager Through The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Main Road, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Anisha Khatun W/o Naiem Khan Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Salwa, Isaipara, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Bahrapara, Tanakahar, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mohd. Arsh S/o Naiem Khan Aged About 4 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anisha Khatun, R/o Village Salwa, Isaipara, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Bahrapara, Tanakahar, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ahid S/o Naiem Khan Aged About 7 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anisha Khatun, R/o Village Salwa, Isaipara, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Bahrapara, Tanakahar, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - K.K. Yadav S/o F. Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o North Chirmiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 07/07/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company challenging the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in its SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 award dated 03.02.2020 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in M.A.C.C. No. 148/2014 whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as amount of compensation to the respondents. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that applicant/claimant filed an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pleading therein that on 07.05.2014 at around 08:30 P.M. Naeem Khan (since deceased) along with the Non-Applicant No. 1/Respondent No. 4 herein was going towards Shivpur, District – Sarguja in the offending vehicle of the Non-Applicant No. 1/K.K. Yadav bearing registration no. CG 16 ZD 0311 to attend a marriage function. The offending vehicle was driven by Naeem Khan and when they reached near Village Kanchanpur, the brakes of the offending vehicle failed and it lost control and the said vehicle over turned. Due to the said accident, Naeem Khan suffered severe injuries, he was taken to hospital for treatment. During the course of treatment, Naeem Khan succumbed to his injuries. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 111/2014, P.S. Baikunthpur, District – Korea for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The claimants have filed an application before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased Naeem Khan was aged about 30 years, was earning Rs. 3000/- per month. In the said accident, claimants have lost their bread-winner and therefore, they have sought an amount of Rs. 17,05,000/- as compensation from the non-applicants before the learned Claims Tribunal. 3 4. The Non-Applicant No. 1 submitted its reply denying the pleadings made in the claim application and have pleaded before the Claims Tribunal that on 22.07.2013, he has sold the offending vehicle bearing registration no. CG 16 JD 0311 to the deceased Naeem Khan for an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- and have signed No Objection Certificate for transferring the registration. Further, he has also applied for transfer of the ownership of the offending vehicle in favour of deceased before the concerned Regional Transport Office. He pleaded that from the date of sale of the offending vehicle, he was not in possession or ownership of the vehicle and the same was in favour of the deceased Naeem Khan. 5. The Non-Applicant No. 2/Insurance Company also submitted its reply denying the pleadings made by the applicants/claimants before the learned Claims Tribunal and submitted that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by the deceased. The Non-Applicant No. 1 had sold the vehicle to the deceased on 20.07.2013, but on the date of accident i.e. 07.05.2014, the deceased was not having the ownership of the offending vehicle, therefore, the claimants are not entitle for grant of compensation. The Non-Applicant No. 2 further submitted that the deceased was not possessing a valid and effective driving license, permit and fitness, therefore, the vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. As also, the deceased does not belong to the category of third-party and no premium was paid covering risk of deceased, therefore, the Non-Applicant No. 2 is not liable for payment of any compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record, have fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicant No. 2/Insurance Company. 4 Further, the learned Tribunal recorded a finding that death of the deceased was due to the motor accidental injuries caused by the offending vehicle, the vehicle was not being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy and the said vehicle was sold by the Non-Applicant No. 1 in favour of the deceased on 07.05.2014 and thus, the deceased was owner of the offending vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal considering the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased has partly allowed the claim application and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as amount of compensation to the claimant. 7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that this appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in considering the deceased to be the owner of the offending vehicle and have held that the claimants would be entitled for the compensation under the personal accident coverage. He submits that the sale of the offending vehicle has not been proved in accordance with law and therefore, the said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is erroneous. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission of the counsel for the appellant and would submit that earlier the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim case which was put to challenge by way of filing MAC No. 318/2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 04.09.2017. In the said appeal also, the claimants have taken a specific plea that the registered owner of the offending vehicle i.e. K.K. Yadav/Non-Applicant No. 1 have sold the vehicle to Naeem Khan and have signed No Objection Certificate in his favour for transferring the registration of the vehicle in the name of deceased. 9. Considering that plea taken by the claimants as also, the documents enclosed along with the memo of appeal, it was partly allowed and the 5 appeal was remitted back to the learned Claims Tribunal to pass an order afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties to prove the fact of sale of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the claimants thereafter have amended the claim application. The learned Claims Tribunal considering the evidence of the registered owner of the vehicle i.e. the Non-Applicant No. 1/K.K. Yadav and the other oral and documentary evidence on record have passed the impugned award which does not call for any interference. 10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case. 11. Perusal of the records of the claim case would show that there is an order passed by this Court in MAC NO. 318/2017 whereby, the appeal filed by the respondents/claimants challenging the award dated 29.11.2016 in Claim Case No. 148/2014 was allowed in part and the case was remitted back to the learned Claims Tribunal for deciding the case afresh, after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The claimants after remand of the case have amended their pleading and have taken a plea of purchase of vehicle by the deceased from its original/registered owner i.e. K.K. Yadav. Copy of the agreement to sale of the offending vehicle is also available on record. Copy of the particulars of the vehicle bearing registration no. CG 16 ZD 0311 is available on record as Ex. D/3 wherein, the name of the deceased Md. Naeem Khan has been shown to be the owner of the vehicle. 12.The appellant insurance company will be liable for its contractual liability. Copy of the Insurance Policy is filed as Ex. D/2, its validity period is mentioned as from 23.10.2013 to 22.10.2014. Date of accident is 07.05.2014 i.e. within currency period of the policy issued 6 by the Non-Applicant No. 2/Insurance Company for offending vehicle. According to schedule of premium payment for covering risk of owner, driver is paid of Rs. 100/- and therefore, risk of Rs. 2,00,000/- is covered under the policy for owner-driver. In preceding paragraph, this Court recorded finding that as per RC Book, name of deceased Naeem Khan has been mentioned as owner in vehicle particulars of vehicle CG 16 ZD 0311 (Ex. D/3). In the aforementioned facts of the case, risk of deceased was covered under the personal accident coverage of owner-driver. The award passed by Claims Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- against insurance company does not call for any interference 13.In the aforementioned facts of the case, evidence available on record, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 14.Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey