-1- 2025:CGHC:37472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 511 of 2021 Smt. Pushpa Singh W/o Chandrashekhar Singh Parihar Aged About 49 Years R/o New Balaji Transport, Devpuri Raipur P. S. Tikrapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh........(Owner Of Truck No. C.G. 04-Z. D. 1325) Non Applicant No. 02 ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Naseema Begum W/o Late Md. Riyaj Khan Aged About 19 Years 2 - Md. Rehan Khan S/o Late Md. Riyaj Khan Aged About 5 Years 3 - Md. Rajjak Khan S/o Md. Rasool Khan Aged About 45 Years 4 - Kamrun Nisha W/o Md. Rajjak Khan Aged About 40 Years (Respondent No. 2 Minor is represented through his Natural Guardian Mother Naseema Begum) All R/o Kolpara, Khadgawan, P. S. And Tahsil Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ........Claimants 5 - Anil Kumar Sahu S/o Beni Ram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Puri (Bhatapara) P. S. Arjuni, District Dhamtari At Present New Balaji Transport Devpuri, Raipur P. S. Tikrapara District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. C. G. No. 04 Z D 1325) Non Applicant No. 01 6 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Regional Manager, Second Floor, R. D. A. Building, Bajrang Market J. E. Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ......(Insurer) ...........(Non Applicant No. 03) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.19 10:32:09 +0530 -2- __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 5 : None appears though served For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate along with Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 31/07/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is by the the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle- Truck No. CG-04-JD-1325 challenging the award dated 22.04.2019 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Korea (CG) in Claim Case No.43 of 2017, whereby claim application filed by the respondents No.1 to 4/claimants has been partly allowed fastening liability upon the appellant/owner to satisfy the award of compensation. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 4 /claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Claims Tribunal, pleading therein that 12/02/2017, Mohd. Riaz Khan was travelling in Indica car No. CG 12 D-9887 towards Baikunthpur along with his friend Ajay Singh. When he was on his way, non-applicant 1 Anil Kumar Sahu driving truck No. CG 04 ZD-1325 rashly and negligently dashed the car driven by Mohd. Riaz Khan. In the accident Mohd. Riaz Khan suffered grievous injuries on his head and other parts of -3- the body and died. At the time of the accident, deceased Mohd. Riaz Khan was 30 years old healthy man, was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month by working as a Driver. Due to untimely death of Riaz Khan, they are facing financial crisis, claimed compensation of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- from the non- applicants under different heads. 3. Non-applicants 1 & 2 in their written statement have denied the pleadings made in claim application and it was further pleaded that on 12/02/2017 non-applicant No.1 was driving vehicle truck No. CG 04 ZD- 1325 carefully. On the date of the accident, non-applicant had a valid and effective driving license, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3/ insurance company, hence, the liability to pay compensation lies with the insurance company. 4. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company by filing its written statement resisted the claim application and pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself. On the date of the accident, deceased did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Non-applicant No.1 was driving the offending vehicle without valid driving license. There was no fitness and permit of the offending vehicle, due to which the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as the conditions of the insurance policy have been violated. 5. 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 Mohd. Riaz Khan sustained grievous injuries and died, computed compensation of -4- Rs.13,46,000/-, Recording a finding that breach of the conditions of insurance policy was found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non- applicants No. 1 & 2 (Driver and Owner of offending vehicle) liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-owner would submit that learned Claims Tribunal had exonerated the insurance company recording a finding that on the date of accident offending vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions as there was no valid permit and fitness of the offending vehicle. He contended that after receipt of notice in claim case, appellant/non-applicant No.2 caused her appearance and has also engaged Advocate, however, after appearing on few dates, Advocate engaged by appellant did not appear and appellant/owner was proceeded ex-parte. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has already handed over all the relevant documents relating to vehicle including permit and fitness certificate, however, the said documents could not be filed by Advocate as he did not appear on further dates of hearing before the Claims Tribunal. After passing of award and getting knowledge that Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding of breach of policy condition on the ground of not having the valid permit and fitness of offending vehicle, appellant, after obtaining relevant documents, has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC after filing of this appeal . He submits that there is no deliberate attempt on the part of appellant in not placing relevant documents before the Claims Tribunal, however, it was the mistake on the part of counsel engaged by her and, therefore, application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC be allowed. He also contended that during course of argument in this appeal when application under Order 41 Rule 27 -5- of CPC is pressed upon, respondent No.6/insurance company was directed to verify the documents. Permit and fitness enclosed along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC was verified and a report after investigating and verifying the document has been submitted by respondent No.6 along with memo of submission. Investigation was done by Investigator of the insurance company and according to report ,on the date of accident i.e. 12.02.2017 offending vehicle was having valid permit and fitness. He contended that as finding recorded by Claims Tribunal of breach of policy condition is only on two points i.e. absence of/ non- production of permit and fitness now it has been proved to be valid and effective on the date of accident, therefore, impugned award so far as it relates to fastening of liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon appellant/owner be set aside and the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation be fastened upon insurance company being insurer of offending vehicle. 7. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 4/claimants and respondent No.5/driver/non-applicant No.1. 8. Respondent No.6/insurance company would submit that after hearing for some time on the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, documents filed along with application have been verified by the Investigator of the Insurance Company who submitted its report on 17.05.2022. Report is already made part of record through memo of submitting investigation report. He submits that based on report available and filed on behalf of respondent No.6 he is not in a position to dispute the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was having valid permit and fitness certificate . -6- He however, made submission that though the appeal is filed by owner, however, interest awarded by the Clams Tribunal of 9% is on higher side. 9. I have heard heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award as also documents enclosed along with memo of appeal. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal while deciding claim case framed issue No.3 i.e. whether on the date and time of accident, offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions ? upon appreciation of evidence it answered the issue in para-19 and 20 of impugned award wherein Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that police during investigation of crime has not seized copy of fitness and permit certificate. Insurance Company has also issued notice to owner of offending vehicle to submit copy of fitness and permit, however, owner of offending vehicle has not submitted the same. Claims Tribunal came to conclusion that there was no valid permit and fitness of the offending vehicle which is essential documents and absence of which will lead to breach of policy conditions and accordingly it is held that there was breach of policy conditions on the date and time of accident. Perusal of impugned award would show that after notice in claim proceedings, non-applicant No. 1 & 2 driver and owner of offending vehicle caused their appearance and also submitted reply to claim application. From the aforementioned facts, submission of learned counsel for the appellant that after receipt of notice, appellant- owner caused her appearance through her Advocate appears to be correct. 11.Along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, appellant-owner has filed the copy of permit (national permit). Permit is verified by insurance company and as per report submitted by respondent No.6, permit was valid on 12.02.2017 (date of accident) as the period of permit -7- was from 11.12.2012 till 11.12.2017. It also mentions the fitness verification and it is mentioned that fitness certificate of the offending vehicle was valid from 08.12.2017 till 07.12.2018. Vehicle particulars which has been placed along with report also mentions that fitness was valid up to 07.12.2019. The accident was on 12.02.2017 whereas the fitness of vehicle was for the period from 09.12.2016 to 08.12.2017. 12. In the aforementioned facts of case where the appellant has been fastened liability to satisfy the award only on the ground of not producing valid and effective fitness and permit before the Claims Tribunal and before this Court, appellant has submitted copy of permit along with relevant documents and the insurance company has already verified the documents and have found that on the date of accident there was valid and effective permit and fitness of the offending vehicle, I find it appropriate to allow the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and the additional evidence brought on record is accepted. 13. As the documents are issued by the Govt. Office and it has been verified by insurance company, therefore I find it appropriate to allow the appeal and set aside the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions in absence of valid and effective permit and it is accordingly set aside. 14. Consequence of setting aside of said finding would be that on the date of accident vehicle was being plied with valid permit and fitness and it is also having valid and effective insurance policy and therefore liability to satisfy the award of compensation would be upon respondent No.6/non- applicant No.3/Insurance Company. It is ordered accordingly. Other conditions of the award shall remain intact. -8- 15. For the foregoing discussions, appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the manner and extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen