1 2025:CGHC:43360 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 733 of 2022 Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Office No. 403, 4th Floor, Db, City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Rashmi Kannouje W/o Lakhan Kannouje, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Latuwa, P.S. And Tahsil Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Lakhan Kannouje, S/o Ganeshram Kannouje, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Latuwa, P.S. And Tahsil Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 : Ms. Ritika Verma, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 2 26.08.2025 1. The appellant (Insurance Company) has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1988”) challenging the impugned award dated 26/03/2022 passed by learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 56/2020 whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been awarded in his favour of respondent No. 1/claimant under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that on 21/01/2020 at about 9:30 PM, deceased Amit Kumar Kanouje was driving his motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG 22 R 2700 with one Lukesh Verma sitting as pillion rider and on account of potholes on the road, the motorcycle lost balance and he fell on the road due to which he suffered grievous injuries in his head and jaws and he was taken to DKS Superspeciality Hospital, Raipur for treatment but he died on 23/01/2020 while undergoing treatment. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that deceased Amit Kumar Kanouje fell on the road from his motorcycle and 3 suffered serious injuries due to which he died and further held that the motorcycle was being plied in terms of Insurance Policy, therefore, proceeded to grant a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to respondent No. 1/claimant and fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased had learner’s license on the date of the accident and as per Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the vehicle must carry ‘L’ plate in the front and rear if it is being driven by a person who possesses learner’s license and since the vehicle in question did not have any such plate, it can be said that the vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. Moreover, the deceased would not come under the category of third party, as such, the Claims Tribunal has erred in allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 1/claimant under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 and granting a compensation of Rs. 5,00,00/- to her and thereby, fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 5. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned award and submit that the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation and it 4 requires no interference from this Court, as such, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. True it is that deceased possessed learner’s driving license on the date of the accident, but it was valid on the said date and the plea that the vehicle must carry ‘L’ plate in the front and rear if it is being driven by a person who possesses learner’s license, has not been taken by the appellant (Insurance Company) before the Claims Tribunal, therefore, it cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. Moreover, it is the case of the appellant (Insurance Company) that the deceased had borrowed the vehicle from his father (respondent No. 2 herein), therefore, he would not come under the category of third party, but learned Claims Tribunal has clearly held that the appellant (Insurance Company) has failed to prove that the deceased had borrowed the vehicle from respondent No. 2 and as such, since he had valid driving license on the date of the accident and the offending motorcycle was duly insured with the appellant (Insurance Company) and it was being plied in terms of Insurance Policy (Ex. D/4), the Claims Tribunal proceeded to grant compensation of 5 Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent No. 1/claimant applying amendment to 2nd Schedule of Section 163A of the Act of 1988 which came into force on 22/05/2018, which in my considered opinion, is just and proper and does not reqiure any interference by this Court. I do not find any merit in this appeal. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet