1 2025:CGHC:32374 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1286 of 2017 1 - Pramod Kumar Gupta S/o Bhole Prasad Gupta Aged About 35 Years Occupation Driver, Motorcycle No. C G 15 C R 8532 R/o Village Jamuatand, Police Station And Tehsil Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanunganj Chhattisgarh. 2 - Raju Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar Aged About 22 Years Occupation Owner, Motorcycle No. C G 15 C R 8532 R/o Village Jamuatand, Police Station And Tehsil Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanunganj Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Prabha Devi W/o Rajendra Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Jamuatand, Police Station and Tehsil Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanunganj Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ina D/o Rajendra Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Nature Guardian Mother Smt Prabha Devi, R/o Village Jamuatand, Police Station and Tehsil Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanunganj Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sima D/o Rajendra Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Nature Guardian Mother Smt Prabha Devi, R/o Village Jamuatand, Police Station and Tehsil Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanunganj Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shiva S/o Rajendra Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Nature Guardian Mother Smt Prabha Devi, R/o Village Jamuatand, Police YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.16 13:10:59 +0530 2 Station and Tehsil Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanunganj Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Kanta Devi D/o Rajendra W/o Ashish, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Jamuatand, Police Station and Tehsil Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanunganj Chhattisgarh. 6 - United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Bhram Road Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 11.07.2025 1. Despite service of notice, respondents No.1 to 5 i.e. claimants are not appeared before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the matter may be send for mediation. 3. Looking to the fact that the claimants were not appeared before this Court despite service of notice, this Court is of the opinion that sending of the matter for mediation would not be a fruitful exercise. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3 5. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 28.06.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.45/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon owner of the offending vehicle. 6. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 24.12.2015, at about 10.00 PM, Fatichar alias Rajendra (since deceased) was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG/15/CR/8532 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) of Pramod Gupta and going to Balrampur, when they reached near Balrampur Market Road, the motorcycle dashed with the electric pole, due to which, Fatichar alias Rajendra was fell down and suffered injuries over his head. He was taken to the hospital but on the way, he succumbed to the injuries. 7. The claimants have filed the claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.71,90,000/- on various heads. 8. Appellants No.1 and 2/non-applicants No.2 and 3 filed their written statements and pleaded that the accident was not occurred by the motorcycle of Pramod Gupta and the deceased was not travelling in his vehicle. It has been further pleaded that on the date of 4 accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company, as such the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation would be upon the Insurance Company. 9. The Insurance Company/non-applicant No.1 filed its written statement in which it has denied the contents of the petition and stated that the Company is having no information regarding the accident and the accident occurred due to dashing with the electric pole, as such, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. It has been further pleaded that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence, as such, Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 10. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal while relying upon the various case laws, awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,01,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the primary liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the owner of the offending vehicle. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon the owner of the offending vehicle as on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in 5 not considering the fact that there was no breach of policy conditions as on the date of accident, there was valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits supported the impugned award and submits that upon appreciation the materials available on record, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award, which does not call for any interference. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 14. The learned Claims Tribunal, in paragraphs 16 to 18 of the impugned award, has dealt with the issue of the valid and effective driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle and has categorically held that, though the insurance policy was issued for the offending vehicle for the period from 15.09.2015 to 14.09.2016 in the name of Raju Kumar Gupta, on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence. The Claims Tribunal has further held that the owner of the offending vehicle, having knowledge of the fact that the driver did not hold a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident, nonetheless allowed him to drive the offending vehicle. As such, there was a breach of the policy conditions, and the Tribunal fastened the 6 primary liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the owner of the offending vehicle. 15. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned award while fastening the primary liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the owner of the offending vehicle, as on the date of the accident, i.e., 24.12.2015, the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence, and despite knowing this fact, the owner permitted him to ply the offending vehicle. 16. 16. In the result, the ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in law by fastening the primary liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the owner of the offending vehicle, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be, and is hereby, dismissed. 17. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Sd/-/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh