1 / 7 2025:CGHC:38988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 948 of 2024 1. Smt. Chuneshwari Sahu W/o Late Gaindram Sahu Aged About 29 Years 2. Smt. Khiya Bai Sahu W/o Nakul Ram Sahu Aged About 55 Years 3. Nakul Ram Sahu S/o Late Chaklal Sahu Aged About 58 Years All are resident of Village Khorpa, Police Station Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Bhanupratabh Sahu S/o Nakul Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khorpa, Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration Number CG04-MR-9259) 2. Bajaj Alliyanj General Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Mobil Mahal, Vidhan Sabha Road Pandari, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration No.CG04-MR-9259) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R. Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None though served. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 / 7 6/8/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal against the award dated 19.1.2024 passed in Claim Case No.726/2019 by which learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) dismissed claim of appellants for grant of compensation for the death of deceased Gendram Sahu in a motor vehicular accident. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- under various heads, against death of Gendram Sahu in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, who are widow and parents of deceased, on 26.6.2019 when Gendram Sahu was returning to Khursenga from Abhanpur on moped Activa bearing registration No.CG04-MR-9259, he met with an accident, sustained injuries and died. It was further pleaded by claimants that on the date of accident, deceased was 30 years old, he was employed under one Bhanupratap Sahu and earning Rs.200/- per day. Claimants were dependent on the income of deceased and due to his sudden demise, they suffered loss of income. 3. Non-applicant No.1, registered owner of offending vehicle, did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte. 3 / 7 4. Non-applicant No.2-Insurance Company also filed its reply to claim application and denied averments made therein. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was not having valid and effective driving license nor was he registered owner of offending vehicle. At the time of accident, three persons were travelling on Activa. 5. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, dismissed claim application by the impugned award. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting application filed on behalf of claimants against death of Late Gendram on the ground that deceased was not third party but a borrower and on the date of accident, he was not having valid and effective driving license to drive Activa. She contended that the burden to prove the fact that deceased was not possessed with valid and effective driving license was upon insurance company, however, insurance company has not led any admissible evidence in this regard and therefore, it is to be presumed that on the date of accident, deceased was having valid and effective driving license. She next contended that insurance policy, Ex.D-1, there is PA coverage of Rs.15 Lakh for owner- driver, policy was valid from 23.5.2019 to 22.5.2020, that is to say, it was valid on the date of accident, 26.6.2019, covering risk of owner-driver. However, the Claims Tribunal has not 4 / 7 given benefit of said clause of insurance policy to claimants and rejected the entire claim on the ground that on the date of accident deceased driver of two wheeler was not having valid and effective driving license, which is erroneous. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that claim application was filed under section 163A of the Act of 1988, there is no involvement of other vehicle in accident and deceased while driving of two wheeler met with an accident and succumbed to motor accidental injuries. He contended that even if submission of learned counsel for appellant is to be accepted that deceased stepped into shoe of the owner and will be entitled for benefit under PA coverage for owner- driver, the claimants have to prove that deceased was having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident, in which they utterly failed. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal justified in rejecting claim of claimants observing that two wheeler was being driven in breach of policy conditions. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case. 9. In the instant case, admittedly there was no other vehicle involved and further the vehicle involved was being driven by the deceased himself, who is brother of owner of said vehicle. Non-applicant Insurance Company filed reply to claim application specifically pleading that deceased was driving vehicle without having valid and effective driving license in his 5 / 7 name. Claimant No.1, widow of deceased, admitted in her cross-examination that driving license of deceased was not produced in the matter. Perusal of final report would show that driving license of deceased (driver of offending vehicle) was never produced nor seized by police. Perusal of order sheet of Claims Tribunal dated 7.10.2023 would show that an application was filed on behalf of Insurance Company under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC for direction to claimants to produce driving license of deceased and in reply to said application, claimants have taken a stand that driving license of deceased lost at the time of accident. However, they have not brought on record any material to show that any complaint or report was lodged with police that driving license of deceased was lost at the time of accident. As driving license is not brought on record, nothing further could have been done as Insurance Company could not have known the Licensing Authority or the place from where the driving license was obtained. 10. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle. 11. In case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shanti and others, reported in 2013 ACJ 2530, it was held that failure to produce driving license would be sufficient to draw an inference that driver did not possess a valid driving license. 6 / 7 12. As per the insurance policy Ex.P-7, the company shall not be liable under the policy in respect of any accident loss damage and/or liability caused sustained or incurred whilst the vehicle is being driven by any person other than driver stated in the Driver's Clause. In case at hand, license of deceased was not placed on record and hence, it can safely be presumed that deceased (driver of offending vehicle) was not holding an effective driving licence on the date and time of accident. Thus, finding of learned Claims Tribunal that the offending vehicle was driven without license, amounts to breach of terms and condition of insurance policy and therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured, is based on proper appreciation of material brought on record by respective parties and it needs no inference. Accordingly, it is affirmed. 13. As regards submission of learned counsel for appellants that risk of deceased was covered under ‘Compulsory Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver’ clause of insurance policy Ex.D-1 to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/-, the owner of insured vehicle holding an 'effective' driving license is termed as Owner-Driver for the purposes of this clause. Cover is provided to Owner-Driver whilst driving the vehicle" including mounting into/dismounting from or traveling in insured vehicle as a co-driver. In other words, only registered owner in person is entitled to compulsory cover where he/she holds an 7 / 7 effective driving license. In case at hand, admittedly registered owner of offending vehicle is non-applicant No.1, who is brother of deceased. As deceased was not having effective license to drive offending vehicle, therefore, there was breach of policy conditions. 14. For the foregoing discussion, there is no substance in this appeal, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/