1 2025:CGHC:46260 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1081 of 2019 1 - Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Tara Complex, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh Through Authorised Signatory, Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, United India Insurance Company Limited 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh............(N.A.No.3), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Madhu Kour Wd/o Late Jag Sing Aged About 27 Years R/o Indra Nagar, Ward No. 25, Camp 2, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dilpreet Singh S/o Late Jag Singh Aged About 11 Years Being Minors They Are Through Their Smt. Madhu Kour Wd/o Late Jag Singh Respondent No.1, R/o Indra Nagar, Ward No. 25, Camp 2, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Manpreet Singh S/o Late Jag Singh Aged About 9 Years Being Minors They Are Through Their Smt. Madhu Kour Wd/o Late Jag Singh Respondent No.1, R/o Indra Nagar, Ward No. 25, Camp 2, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Harshdeep Singh S/o Late Jag Singh Aged About 4 Years Being Minors They Are Through Their Smt. Madhu Kour Wd/o Late Jag Singh Respondent No.1, R/o Indra Nagar, Ward No. 25, Camp 2, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Jagir Singh S/o Late Baccha Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Indra Nagar, Ward No. 25, Camp 2, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Paramjeet Kour W/o Jagir Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Indra Nagar, Ward No. 25, Camp 2, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh...............(Claimants), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Ajay Kumar Paswan S/o Lakhichand Paswan Aged About 49 Years R/o House No. 153, Shahid Veer Narayan Singh Nagar, H.S.C.L. Colony, Ward No.- 28, Khursipara- Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.............(Driver), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 8 - Rajkumar Verma S/o Late Tilak Ram Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, New Khursipara, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh..............(Owner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate None for the other respondents though served. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 10/09/2025 This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated 26.02.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 141/2018 by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Durg, CG. By the impugned award, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 15,17,902/- in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 on account of death of deceased Jag Singh aged about 28 years in an accident that took place on 16.02.2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration No. CG 07-C/5147 driven by the respondent No. 7 / driver, owned by respondent Nos. 8 / owner and insured with the appellant / insurance company. 2. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of MV Act, the deceased was aged about 28 years and was working as a Shubham Auto showroom and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 / claimants are widow, minor children and parent of the deceased who were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 3. The claim application was resisted by respondent Nos. 7 & 8 /driver and owner denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that 3 since the vehicle was insured with the appellant/ insurance company if any compensation is awarded, the liability to pay the same is on the appellant/insurance company. 4. The appellant / insurance company also filed its written statement and denied the averments of the claim application, it was pleaded that the deceased was himself negligence in causing the accident, no permit was seized and no fitness was there, there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5. On the basis of above broad pleadings, the learned Claims Tribunal framed six issues and decided the same in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 / claimants and awarded the above stated compensation. 6. Mr. Nande, learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company submits that the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective permit, the permit was not seized according to the seizure memo, the deceased was himself negligent in causing the accident therefore, insurance company may be exonerated alternative the amount of compensation may be reduced. He further submits that no endorsement was made in the driving license of the offending vehicle to drive the transport vehicle. 7. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 supports the impugned award and submits that categorical finding has been recorded in paragraph 19 that the vehicle had a national permit and fitness was enforced on the date of accident. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. The first contention is with regard to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Paragraph 19 of the impugned award clearly indicates that the vehicle had national permit was enforced from 07.02.2015 to 06.02.2020 and according to Ex. P-14 the fitness was found from 20.11.2017 to 19.11.2018 was enforced. According to Ex.P-17 the driver / respondent No. 7 was holding transport license was valid upto 4 21.03.2019 and on the date of incident, the insurance of the offending vehicle was also enforced. Apart from this, no evidence was led by the insurance company to prove its pleadings which is once the insurance company takes a plea violation of the insurance policy, it is in-compelled upon them to prove the same by leading the evidence which would subject the cross examination by the other parties, therefore, this contention is rejected. 10. The next contention is with regard to contributing negligence. The learned Tribunal after assessment of evidence on record in paragraph 17 found the contributing negligence of the deceased to 20% and thereby deducting that amount the compensation was awarded. In light of above, this Court does not the submissions made that there should be 50% contributing negligence on the part of the deceased does not appeal to the Court because the finding recorded in paragraph 16 & 17 are based upon the proper appreciation. 11. The appeal fails and is herby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan