1 2025:CGHC:40893 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1129 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Ambikapur, Zila Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. .............Respondent No. 3, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Rajkumar S/o S/o Late Manikchand Aged About 43 Years R/o 33/457, Azad Nagar Godripara, Post Godripara, Tehsil Khargavan, Thana- Chirimiri District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ............Claimant No. 1., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Alok Barwa S/o S/o Walter Barwa Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Doman Hills, Premnagar, Tahsil Khargava, Thana Chirimiri Post Sonawani, Zila Korea, Chhattisgarh. ..........Respondent No. 1. ..............Owner Of Pickup Vehicle C. G.- 15- T. C. 0258/ T. O.- 0264. Or Alok Barwa S/o Walter Barwa Gurunank Ward Tahsil Manendragarh- Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Pradeep Kumar S/o S/o Surajnath Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Subhas Colony, Domanhills Post Sonawani, Tahsil Khargava, Thana Chirimiri, Zila Korea, Chhattisgarh. ..........Respondent No. 2. ...............Driver Of Pickup Vehicle C. G.-15- T. C.-0258/t. O.- 0264., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 13/08/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 23.01.2018 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2 Manendragarh, Distt. - Korea (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 15/2015. 2. The averment in in this appeal, in brief, is that the claimant / non- appellant filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of his brother, Devkumar, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 02.05.2013. According to the claimants, Devkumar was traveling on 23.05.2013 as a passenger in a pickup vehicle bearing registration number C.G.-15 TC 0258 / T.O. 0264, traveling from Dhadhgaon to Domamhill. Near the area between Dhaggaon and Dubchhola, at around 4 A.M., the driver of the vehicle allegedly drove rashly and negligently, causing the vehicle to collide with a mahua tree. This accident resulted in grievous injuries to Devkumar, leading to his death. A criminal case (Crime Case No. 89/2013) was registered under sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A at Khadhgaon police station. Subsequently, the claimant, as a dependent, filed for compensation amounting to Rs. 32,18,660/- before the Learned Claims Tribunal. The Learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation totaling Rs. 1,80,000/- under various heads, including Rs. 1,50,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses, and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of love and affection, along with 8% interest. The Insurance Company filed a written statement and led evidence challenging the claim. The Insurance Company contended that the offending vehicle was a goods-carrying commercial pickup with seating capacity only for the driver and one passenger. They alleged that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was not registered, lacked a valid permit and fitness certificate, and the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license. Therefore, the Insurance Company argued that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated 3 under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A report dated 14.12.2018 of an investigator revealed that the vehicle was not registered on the date of the accident. The owner admitted during the inquiry that he had not received Form C from the financer and could not provide the required registration documents. It was established that the vehicle was purchased four months before the accident, and the owner had not completed the registration process or obtained a fitness certificate from the RTO. The Insurance Company also produced evidence from the Branch Manager, Amit Kumar, who confirmed that the insurance policy covered a goods-carrying vehicle and required a valid driving license, permit, and fitness certificate, all of which were absent on the date of the accident. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the offending vehicle was a goods-carrying commercial pickup vehicle that was neither registered at the time of the accident nor possessed the mandatory permit and fitness certificate. The driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license, thus violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and statutory provisions under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Insurance Company relied on the report of investigator and the evidence of the Branch Manager, Amit Kumar, to demonstrate these violations. It is further argued that the owner had not completed the vehicle registration formalities with the RTO and therefore could not obtain a fitness certificate. The vehicle had been purchased just four months before the accident, and the owner failed to provide necessary documentation during the investigation. The Insurance Company pointed out that these vital facts were overlooked by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. Moreover, learned 4 counsel submitted that the deceased was not traveling as the owner or custodian of any goods or luggage, as no such materials were seized by the police. The Tribunal erred in assuming the role of deceased related to goods transport, which is a violation of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Lastly, the learned counsel for appellant - Insurance Company submitted that the compensation was wrongly awarded to the brother of the deceased, despite the existence of the wife and children of deceased who are the rightful claimants entitled to receive the compensation. This issue was raised before the Tribunal but not addressed. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed, and the award passed by Tribunal be set aside in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 - claimant submits that the grounds raised by the appellant - Insurance Company are not tenable and the Tribunal has rightly passed the award. The technical lapses relating to registration, permit, fitness certificate, and driving license cannot defeat the substantive right of claimant to compensation for the death of his brother caused by the accident. The Tribunal correctly relied on the evidence that the accident occurred and the claimant was a dependent entitled to compensation. The objection regarding the status of claimant was rightly rejected, as the presence of wife and children does not exclude the claim of brother. Further, the Insurance Company failed to prove any willful violation of policy terms to deny liability. Therefore, the award in favor of the claimant deserves to be upheld in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 5 6. On perusal of the insurance policy, it is clear that it is a package policy covering the goods-carrying vehicle comprehensively. The policy conditions do not specifically exclude liability for technical lapses unless willful violations are proved. From the evidence on record, including the report of investigator and oral testimonies, it has not been conclusively established that the vehicle was without a permit or fitness certificate at the time of the accident. The admission of owner of incomplete registration formalities is not sufficient to deprive the claimant of compensation. The Insurance Company failed to produce concrete documentary evidence to prove that the vehicle was unfit or unregistered at the time of the accident or that the driver’s license was invalid. Mere suspicion or technical non-compliance does not exonerate the insurer from liability, especially where a loss of human life is involved. Further, the contention that the claimant brother was not entitled to compensation in the presence of wife and children is misconceived. The Tribunal rightly observed that the claimant was a legal dependent of the deceased and was entitled to seek compensation. 7. The law does not bar dependents like brothers from claiming compensation, particularly when the dependents have demonstrated their dependency. The argument raised by Insurance Company regarding Section 147 and the role of deceased as custodian of goods is also without merit. There is no conclusive evidence to disprove the occupancy or involvement of deceased with the vehicle at the time of the accident. The findings of Tribunal on this aspect are based on a careful appreciation of the facts and cannot be disturbed lightly. In view of the above, no valid or substantial ground exists to interfere with the 6 award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The decision of Tribunal is well-reasoned, based on evidence, and in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. The award dated 23.01.2018 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 15/2015 stands upheld. The claimant is entitled to the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal along with interest. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna