1 2025:CGHC:10371 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 855 of 2017 Branch Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Rajbandha Graound, Navbharat Press Complex Building, Behind District Co-Operative Bank Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer ... Appellant (Insurer) Versus 1 - Rajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Chitren Sahu, Aged About 22 Years R/o Gandhi Nagar Near Naya Talab Gudiyari Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimant, 2 - Pikesh Kumar Sahu S/o Suresh Kumar Sahu, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Hathkhoj, P.S. Bhilai-3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh .............Driver, 3 - B. Subhashis W/o Tirupatiya, R/o Q.No. 15/ M, Road No. Avenue D. Sector 06, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner, ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Richa Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. AK Yadav, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment on Board 03/03/2025 The appellant/insurer has filed the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 25.2.2017 passed by VI Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No.42/2014 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,82,661/- with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition to respondent No.1/claimant, fastening the liability upon the appellant/insurer. 02. Respondent No.1/claimant filed an application under Section 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act stating that on 20.1.2014 in the morning the claimant along with one Mohit Sahu was going from his village Jevra Navagaon to Raipur by motorcycle HF Delux Self bearing registration No. CG 04 KV 4587. The motorcycle was being ridden by the claimant. However, when they reached Khudmuda Mandi, a vehicle Bolero Pickup bearing registration No. CG 07 CA 9227 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the offending vehicle") which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and hit the claimant's motorcycle as a result of which the claimant suffered fracture of right leg bone and his motorcycle also got completely damaged. The claimant remained hospitalized from 20.1.2014 to 4.2.2014 where a rod was inserted in his leg. At the time 3 of accident, he was 22 years of age and working in a courier service and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He claimed a total sum of Rs.13.30 lacs as compensation from the respondents/non-applicants under various heads with interest @ 12% pa. 03. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2/Driver & Owner of the offending vehicle in their written statement denied the allegation that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by non-applicant No.1. They stated that in fact, on the fateful day construction of road was going on, a truck was standing there and non-applicant No.1 was driving the offending vehicle moderately on his side. Since there was dust all over in the air as construction of road was going on, the claimant himself could not see the offending vehicle coming from behind the standing truck and hit the offending vehicle. Thus, non-applicants No. 1 & 2 are not at all liable for paying any compensation to the claimant and whatever compensation is awarded to the claimant, it is payable by non-applicant No.3/insurance company. 04. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement contended that the offending vehicle was never involved in the alleged accident. It is denied that any FIR was lodged in respect of the alleged accident, therefore, the claim application is liable to be dismissed with cost. It was also contended that driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and as such, there being 4 breach of policy conditions also, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. 05. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal framed six issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 06. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the impugned award is bad on facts as well as law. The Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of DW-1 in its proper perspective that Licence No.P/25984 was issued in the year 2004 in the name of Peeyush Kumar Parkar, not in the name of Pikesh Kumar Sahu, therefore, the licence seized from non-applicant No.1 which shows the date of issuance as 2006 is a fake and forged because the same series and licence number cannot be issued subsequently to others. Learned Tribunal also failed to consider that as per Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, currency or validity of licence authorization to drive LMV is for 20 years. In the instant case, the seized licence was issued on 3.11.2008 and valid up to 2.11.2026 which is less than 20 years, as such there is strong apprehension that the seized licence is a fake one. He further submits that the offending vehicle is registered and insured as a goods carrying commercial vehicle and as per Sections 2(47) and 14 of the MV Act, it comes under the definition of "transport vehicle" whereas the seized licence was for LMV. Thus, there is being breach of 5 policy conditions, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant and the impugned award deserves to be set aside or modified to this extent. 07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents support the impugned award and submit that the learned Tribunal after proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly granted compensation to the claimant fastening the liability upon the insurance company and as such, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 09. It is clear from the record of learned Tribunal that the Tribunal framed Issues No. 2 & 3 as under: dza- वाद-्ቚश्न निनष्क्ቧ 02. क्या उ्ሹ द्ቈटन निदनक क ्ቚश्नधीन वाहन बोलेरो निकअ ्ቅाሰक-सी.जी.07. सी.ए., 9227 अनवादक क.-03 क ቛኋरो बोनिाሰत थी? "ह" 03. क्या अनवादक क.-01 एवा 02 न ्ቚश्नधीन वाहन बोलेरो निकअ काሰक-सी.जी.07, सी. ए., 9227 क चालेन ाሰ' बोाሰ शत) क उቤ቏्ቈन निकया? "नह+" 10. The appellant/insurance company examined Satyendra Kumar Soni, AG-III in Additional Regional Transport Office, Durg as DW-1 who 6 states that as per record of RTO, Durg, permanent driving licence was issued on 18.11.2004 in favour of Piyush Kumar Parkar, s/o Ram Pyara Parkar, R/o Shanti Nagar, Bhilai for motorcycle with gear and LMV which is valid till 17.11.2024. The driving licence number is P-25984 and in the register Ex.D/1 there is no entry in the name of Piyush Kumar Parkar for driving any other kind of vehicle. He states that vehicle bearing No. CG 07 CA 9227 falls in the category of Light Goods Pickup Vehicle. 11. Learned Tribunal appreciated the statement of this witness and found that as per seizure memo of Ex.P/5, driving licence seized by the police from non-applicant No.1 is in the name of Pikesh Kumar Sahu, bearing No. P/25984 and is valid up to 2.11.2026. However, as per DW-1 Satyendra Kumar Soni, driving licence bearing No. P/25984 was issued in the name of one Piyush Kumar Parkar S/o Ram Pyara Parkar. Learned Tribunal found that Satyendra Kumar Soni brought the register of 2004 whereas driving licence was issued in favour of non- applicant No.1 Pikesh Kumar Sahu on 3.11.2008 and no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the insurance company that on 3.11.2008 no driving licence was issued in the name of non-applicant No.1 Pikesh Kumar Sahu. So learned Tribunal minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly found that as per driving licence seized by the police in criminal case, no register containing 7 details of this driving licence which was issued in the year 2008 was filed by the insurance company. 12. It is well settled that the burden of proof lies on the party who makes allegation or assertion. The insurance company alleges that there is breach of policy conditions, however, it has utterly failed to adduce any evidence, oral or documentary, to prove the same. Being so, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding the appellant/insurance company liable for paying compensation to the claimant. 13. In the result, the appeal being without any merits is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN