1 2025:CGHC:15974 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 904 of 2018 1. Ram Kumar Shrivas S/o Chaitram Shrivas Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Rampur Dhodhi, Police Station Seepat District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner ) ... Appellant versus 1. Dayaram Kaiwart S/o Late Seetaram Kaiwart Aged About 55 Years R/ At Village Rampur Dhodhi , Police Station Seepat District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Urmila Bai W/o Dayaram Kaiwart Aged About 52 Years R/ At Village Rampur Dhodhi , Police Station Seepat District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 3. Ifco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Second Floor M.M. Silver Plaza, Opposite Udyog Bhawan Near Mining Office Ring Road No. 1 Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurance Co.) 4. Neelkamal Patel S/o Radhelal Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Rampr Dhodhi Police Station Seepat District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. For Respondents No.1,2 & 4 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment o n Board SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.04.08 09:45:59 +0530 2 04 / 04 / 2025 1. The present appeal is the owner’s appeal against the award dated 15.02.2018 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Cases No. 246/2015, wherein the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,64,192/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in favour of the claimants. 2. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor by its driver Neelkamal Patel, i.e. respondent No.4, deceased Rajkumar sustained grievous injuries and during treatment in the hospital, he died; further, the Tribunal found that there was a breach of conditions of the policy as the driver of the said tractor did not have a driving license, leading to the registration of an offence under Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore, Insurance Company/IFCO Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No. 3), exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation. 3. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant (Owner of offending vehicle) would submit that respondent No. 1 herein was not driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner. So the claim tribunal has grossly erred and the award passed by the tribunal is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. He next submits that the appellant has duly provided the documents before the learned Claim Tribunal regarding every factual aspect and there is no breach of policy conditions but the learned claims tribunal erred in not exonerating the appellant from the liability of compensation; therefore, this appeal may be allowed and 3 the appellant/owner is liable to be exonerated. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 supported the impugned award and submits that the award in question is well merited which does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Respondent No.3 and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal found in para 12 of its judgment that there is no dispute that the Appellant is the owner of the tractor and the tractor was insured with Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company from 16th April, 2014 to 15th April, 2015 but as per the policy (Ex.D-3), the tractor was insured by the insurance company/respondent No.3 for the aforementioned period and the policy requires the driver to have a valid and effective driving license to operate the insured vehicle but at the time of accident, the driver/respondent No.4 of the said tractor did not have valid and effective driving license. Therefore, it was held that the vehicle was driving in breach of policy conditions, thus, the insurance company has been exonerated from its liability to pay compensation and the driver and owner/appellant herein of the vehicle were held liable to pay the awarded compensation. The finding of the Tribunal in para 12 is correct on the basis of the evidence available on record. Accordingly, I do not find any scope of interference in the award impugned. 7. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this appeal filed by the owner, on the face, is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.