-1- 2025:CGHC:36540 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1051 of 2020 Branch Manager, New India Insurance (Correct Name As Assurance) Company Limited Office, Ambikapur Petrol Pump Campus, Ambedkar Chowk Banaras Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Minor Shakshi D/o Late Uday, Aged About 17 Years 2 - Minor Shreya D/o Late Uday Aged About 14 Years 3 - Minor Shani D/o Late Uday Aged About 12 Years All minor through Natural Guardian Grandmother Rambai W/o Thakur Dayal, Aged About 50 Years 4 - Thakur Dayal S/o Baiga Aged About 52 Years 5 - Rambai W/o Thakur Dayal Aged About 50 Years All R/o Premnagar, Police Station And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) (Claimants) 6 - Rajesh Das S/o Antu Das Aged About 20 Years R/o Premnagar, Ward No. 07, Police Station And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) (Non-Applicant No. 1 7 - Pradeep Kumar Digskar S/o Late Kamaldev Aged About 62 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda, Muktidham Chowk, Gali No. 1, Ward No. 9, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Non-Applicant No. 2) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.12 10:25:59 +0530 -2- _________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate For Resp. No. 6 & 7 : None appears though served _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 28/07/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by appellant-insurance company challenging the award passed by learned learned Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District -Surajpur (CG) vide award dated 17th March 2020 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.104 of 2019. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No.1 to 5 /claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before learned Claims Tribunal, pleading therein that on 15.03.2019 at around 3.30 pm, when Uday Bhan was travelling in a Scorpio vehicle number CG-29-A/5857 from Ramanujnagar to Premnagar, driver of the said vehicle drove it rashly and negligently, caused an accident, due to which Uday Bhan who was travelling in the vehicle suffered serious injuries on his chest, stomach and leg. He died during course of his treatment. Before the accident, deceased was engaged in agricultural work and business from which he was earning Rs. 15000/- per month. The applicants/claimants have prayed for total -3- compensation of Rs. 34,00,000/- (thirty four lakh rupees) from non- applicants under different heads. 3. Non-applicant No. 1/driver in his written statement has denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that he is a poor person and working as a driver to earn livelihood for his family. He had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle on the date of the incident, therefore, liability to pay amount of compensation would be upon insurer/non-applicant No.3. 4. Non-applicant No. 2/owner of the offending vehicle by filing his written statement has denied the pleadings made in the claim application and has further pleaded that on the date of accident, vehicle allegedly involved in accident was insured with non-applicant No. 3, hence, non-applicant No. 3 is fully responsible for payment of compensation if any. 5. Non-applicant No. 3/insurance company also resisted the claim and further stated that on the date of the accident of offending vehicle, driver did not have a valid driving license. The vehicle owner also did not have valid registration, permit, fitness. As there was breach of conditions of insurance policy, non-applicant No.3 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to claimants. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Uday Bhan suffered fatal injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of -4- conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, held non- applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.6000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.10,15,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that this appeal is filed challenging the impugned award on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal erred in accepting the forged and fabricated driving licence of respondent No.6/driver of offending vehicle, appellant- insurance company was not granted proper opportunity to lead evidence and to produce particulars of driving licence if any available in the District Transport Office, Palamu, Jharkhand, from where licence of respondent No.6/non-applicant No.1 is stated to be issued and further that application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC for calling District Transport Officer, Palamu, Jharkhand as witness was also rejected. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company further submits that immediately after the accident, crime was registered and police investigated the crime and have filed charge sheet against non- applicant No.1 for alleged offence under Section 304- A, 337 of IPC and offence under Section 3/181 and 5/180 of the Act of 1988. She contended that offence under the Act of 1988 registered against non- applicant No1/respondent No.6 only because, he was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident nor it was produced during course of investigation by non-applicant No.1/respondent No.6 before investigating agency. Copy of licence for first time was filed in claim proceedings, however, proper opportunity to -5- produce the particulars of licence after obtaining the same from District Transport Office Palamu, Jharkhand was not granted and prayer made on this behalf has been rejected. She also contended that application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC was also filed for calling District Transport Officer, Palamu, Jharkhand as witness along with all relevant documents relating to driving licence in the name of non-applicant No.1/respondent No.6. As the appellant- insurance company was not given any opportunity to defend the case, impugned award passed against appellant/non-applicant No. 3-insurance compnay be set aside and matter be remitted back to learned Claims Tribunal to pass order afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to appellant/non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that appellant insurance company failed to produce particulars of licence issued in favour of non-applicant No.1/respondent No.6 if they are raising ground that licence produced by non-applicant No.1 before the Claims Tribunal was forged and fabricated. He also contended that award was passed on 17.03.2020 and in the proceedings before this Court in appeal, till date, particulars of licence of non-applicant No.1/respondent No.6 has not been filed which shows that appellant /non-applicant No.3 only prayed for time and submitted application to linger on the case. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence in particularly copy of licence submitted by driver of offending vehicle passed the impugned award which does not call for any interference. -6- 10. There is no representation on behalf of respondents No. 6 & 7 though served. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 12. Perusal of record of claim case would show that the seizure memo prepared by police during course of investigation does not mention the fact that driving licence was also seized from possession of driver or owner of offending vehicle. Copy of licence was produced before the Claims Tribunal by non-applicant No.1/ driver of offending vehicle on 14.01.2020 along with other documents of offending vehicle Thereafter, non-applicants No. 1 & 2 submitted that they do not want to give oral evidence. Case thereafter was fixed for 22.01.2020, 27.01.2020, 29.01.2020 and 07.02.2020. On 24.02.2020, appellant insurance company has submitted an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC . Perusal of contents of this application would show that copy of licence was served upon him on 29.01.2020 and upon verification of said licence online, it is appearing to be copy of forged licence. Document/copy of licence was sent for investigation, however, report was not received . It is also mentioned that as witness from Jharkhand may not appear before Claims Tribunal and document of District Transport Office Palamu will not be placed for appreciation of Claims Tribunal and therefore commission be issued for examination of District Transport Officer Palamu, Jharkhand. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2020 and fixed the case for recording of evidence of witnesses of non-applicant No.3 and on the same day application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC was also dismissed. -7- 13. From the aforementioned proceedings of Claims Tribunal, it is appearing that learned Claims Tribunal has given short dates in the proceedings of claim case for disposing of claim case at the earliest. It can be considered to be proceedings recorded in haste, however, before this Court even after lapse of five years, appellant- insurance company could not able to produce extract of licence or any information supplied by District Transport Officer Palamu, Jharkhand under Right to Information Act. Appellant could have obtained document/verification report, verifying the copy of licence as available in record. No such document has been obtained by appellant- insurance company neither during proceedings of claim case nor before this Court. 14. In the aforementioned facts of case, in the opinion of this Court, appellant- insurance company who is having the office in almost all major cities of country, even then could not able to obtain particulars of licence or information about the licence submitted by non-applicant No.1/ driver, I do not find any good ground to interfere with impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal. No other good ground is raised by learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company warranting interference with the impugned award. 15. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen