1 2025:CGHC:32734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1147 of 2018 Principal, Saraswati Shishu Mandir Higher Secondary School, Pendra Police Station And Tahsil Pendra District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Ramavatar Shukla S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Shukla Aged About 52 Years Caste Bramhan, R/o Village Patgawan (House Of Shrichand Vadhawani), Police Station And Tahsil Pendra (Near Diet), District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Kusum Shukla W/o Ramavatar Shukla Aged About 48 Years Caste Bramhan, R/o Village Patgawan (House Of Shrichand Vadhawani), Police Station And Tahsil Pendra (Near Diet), District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rambai Widow Of Lekhram Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kudkai, Police Station And Tahsil- Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Mayaram S/o Ramadhin Yadav Aged About 55 Years Caste Aheer, R/o Village Kudkai, Police Station And Tahsil- Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Gyanmati W/o Mayaram Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kudkai, Police Station And Tahsil- Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, First Floor, Rama Trade Center In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Near Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.16 18:49:00 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 14.07.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.90/2011 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. 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 25.02.2008, at about 10.15 AM, Amit Kumar Shukla (since deceased) was going Manish Computers from the house of Avanish Pandey on his Bajaj CT100 motorcycle, when he reached near Physical College, Pendra, at that relevant time, a mini-bus bearing registration No.CG-10/A/8810 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) of Saraswati Shishu Mandir, dashed the motorcycle of Amit Kumar Shukla, due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries over his person. 3. The injured-claimant, who later died, has filed the claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.9,26,500/- on various heads. 3 4. Appellant/owner of the offending vehicle filed his written statement and pleaded that there was non-joinder of necessary party and there was contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers. It has been further pleaded that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself and the owner was not liable for the accident, in any manner. 5. The Insurance Company/respondent No.6 filed its written statement in which it has denied the contents of the petition and stated that the 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. 6. 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.2,06,940/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the owner of the offending vehicle. 7. 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 not considering the fact that there was no breach of policy 4 conditions as on the date of accident, there was valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle. 8. 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. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal in paragraphs-24 to 26 of the impugned award has dealt with the issue of valid and effective driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle and has categorically held that one Umesh Tripathi, Assistant Grade-3, Regional Transport Office, Bilaspur, was examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, who has produced a computerized extract of the driving licence of the driver Lekhram and Mayaram bearing No.CG10-19960001399, issued on 20.09.1996, marked as Exhibit D-5 stated that on the date of the accident, i.e., 25.02.2008, Lekhram did not possess a valid driving licence to drive a vehicle/school bus, as his licence had not been renewed. He further clarified that the renewal of Lekhram’s driving licence was carried out subsequently, for the period from 28.02.2008 to 27.02.2011. A photocopy of Lekhram’s driving licence has been filed, which reflects the original issuance date as 20.09.1996 as 5 well as it also mentions the renewal date as 28.02.2008. Therefore, it had been established that after the date of the accident, the licence of Lekhram was renewed from 28.02.2008 to 27.02.2011. Accordingly, it stands proved that on the date of the accident, i.e., 25.02.2008, Lekhram had not possessed with valid and effective driving licence. 11. Mr. Sushil Kumar Ekka, Assistant Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bilaspur, was also examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, who also confirmed the fact that on the date and time of the accident, appellant i.e. owner of the vehicle and Lekhram (driver of the vehicle) were operating the bus in contravention with the conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, appellant is primarily liable to compensate for the loss caused by the accident. 12. 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 accident, i.e. 25.02.2008, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. 13. In the result, the ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that learned Claims Tribunal is erred in law in fastening the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the owner 6 of the offending vehicle, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh