1 2025:CGHC:41881 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1037 of 2017 1 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Dakshin Gangotri, Ghadi Chwok Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Represented Through The Officer-In-Charge, The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Divisional Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...............Respondent No.3, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Radhika Devi Wd/o Late Jawahir Chouhan, Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 7/15, Priyadarshniya Parisar, Supela, Near Underbridge, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Permanent R/o Village Misrauli, Tahsil Dhosi, District Mau U.P., Uttar Pradesh 2 - Rampreet Chouhan S/o Late Jawahir Chouhan, Aged About 25 Years R/o House No. 7/15, Priyadarshniya Parisar, Supela, Near Underbridge, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Permanent R/o Village Misrauli, Tahsil Dhosi, District Mau U.P., District : Mau, Uttar Pradesh 3 - Ankit Chouhan S/o Late Jawahir Chouhan, Aged About 21 Years R/o House No. 7/15, Priyadarshniya Parisar, Supela, Near Underbridge, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Permanent R/o Village Misrauli, Tahsil Dhosi, District Mau U.P., District : Mau, Uttar Pradesh 2 4 - Pankaj Chouhan S/o Late Jawahir Chouhan, Aged About 17 Years Minor Represented Through Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Radhika Devi, W/o Late Jawahar Chouhan Respondent No.1 R/o House No. 7/15, Priyadarshniya Parisar, Supela, Near Underbridge, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Permanent R/o Village Misrauli, Tahsil Dhosi, District Mau U.P., District : Mau, Uttar Pradesh 5 - Ku. Poonam Chouhan D/o Late Jawahir Chouhan, Aged About 14 Years Minor Represented Through Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Radhika Devi, W/o Late Jawahar Chouhan Respondent No.1 R/o House No. 7/15, Priyadarshniya Parisar, Supela, Near Underbridge, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Permanent R/o Village Misrauli, Tahsil Dhosi, District Mau U.P., District : Mau, Uttar Pradesh 6 - Dudhnath Chouhan (Died And Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 26-07-2023. 7 - Smt. Dhanawati Devi (Died And Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 26-07-2023. 8 - Shubham Poptani S/o Dilip Kumar Poptani, Aged About 22 Years R/o Nehru Nagar, East, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh .................Driver, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 9 - Prakash Aglawe S/o R.M.Aglawe, Aged About 58 Years R/o Plot No.4/46, Gandhi Nagar, Maitri Kunj, Risali, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bannoon Sabarwal, Advocate on behalf of 3 Mr. R. N. Pusty, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P. R. Patankar and Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate for their respective respondents. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/08/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in Claim Case No.164 of 2016, wherein the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the claimants/appellants. 2. Facts of the present case, in brevity, The vehicle involved in the accident, a Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 07/LW 2221, is owned by Respondent No. 9, and at the relevant time was driven by Respondent No. 8. On 01.08.2011, while allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Respondent No. 8 near Supela Chowk, Bhilai, the said vehicle collided from behind with one Jawahir Chauhan, who was riding his bicycle, resulting in his death. Subsequently, the claimants, being the widow, children, and parents of the deceased Jawahir, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for his untimely death. The learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, by its impugned award dated 19.05.2017 in Claim Case No. 45/15, assessed compensation at 10,21,240/- ₹ along with interest at 9% per annum, jointly and severally payable by the appellant to the claimants. The appellant has complied with 4 the mandatory deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose of this appeal, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure A/1, along with the order dated 06.09.2016 passed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence this appeal. 3. The appellant respectfully submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to the facts, evidence, and settled principles of law, and the findings recorded therein are perverse, warranting interference. The Tribunal committed a serious error in holding that the appellant failed to prove breach of the insurance policy conditions, particularly concerning the driver's licence. It is submitted that the offending vehicle, a Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 07/LW 2221, had an engine capacity of 220 cc, as established from the insurance policy schedule (Exhibit D-3) and the registration certificate, annexed as Annexures A/3 and A/4. As per Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a person below 18 years of age is not permitted to drive a motorcycle with gear or with engine capacity exceeding 50 cc. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was driven by a minor under the age of 18 years, who was not legally authorised to operate such a vehicle and did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. This amounts to a clear and fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated this statutory violation and exonerated 5 the appellant (insurer) from any liability to pay compensation. The failure to do so renders the award legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 4. To buttress his submission learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the several judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jawahar Singh Vs. Bala Jain and Ors. 1 and the case of Pappu and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr 2 . 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents supported the impugned award and submitted that the award in question is based on the proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the judgment/award passed by the Tribunal and particularly paragraph 22 of the impugned award. 7. In paragraph 22 of the impugned award, the learned Claims Tribunal has specifically observed that the Insurance Company failed to produce the Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle or any other cogent evidence to substantiate its plea that the vehicle was a geared motorcycle or that there was any breach of the insurance policy conditions. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the vehicle in 1 (2011) 6 SCC 425 2 (2018) 3 SCC 208 6 question could not be conclusively proved to be a motorcycle with gear, and therefore, no breach of policy conditions could be established by the insurer. 8. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no breach of the insurance policy and accordingly passed the award against the Insurance Company in accordance with law. This Court finds no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal. In the absence of sufficient evidence from the Insurance Company to discharge its burden, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the insurer. This Court, therefore, does not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the award so passed, particularly with respect to the liability imposed on the Insurance Company. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA