1 2025:CGHC:50506 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1516 of 2017 Lala Dewangan S/o Munna Dewangan, Aged About 29 Years R/o Shikshak Nagar, Ambedkar Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Vijay Tiwari S/o Shri Ramnarayan Tiwari, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Sonpuri, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Hemant Das Dewangan, S/o Bodhan Das Dewangan, Aged About 22 Years R/o Behind Ramji Kapda Dukan (Cloth Shop) , Balaji Chowk, Jawahar Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 3 - The Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Mameshwar Singh S/o Bahal Singh, Aged About 28 Years R/o Jhuliyapur, Police Station Fastarpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5 - Suresh Dewangan, S/o Sarhu Dewangan, Aged About 29 Years R/o Ambedkar Ward, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.16 14:24:33 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 09.10.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 20.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.700/2014 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimant and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 20.02.2014, at about 10.00 AM, Vijay Tiwari was walking on the road, when he was on the way to Sakri Road, one motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-10-EN-8806 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) dashed Vijay Tiwari, due to which he sustained injuries over his person. He was taken to Hospital for treatment. 3. The claimant has filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.28,80,441.65 under various heads. 4. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,81,700/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization and fastened the liability 3 to satisfy the amount of commendation upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle submits that learned Claims Tribunal has passed the impugned award against the appellant without proper appreciation of the facts, evidence, and law applicable to the present case. It is submitted that there was no eyewitness to the alleged incident, and the appellant as well as non-applicant No. 4 had specifically stated that the injured person was hit by a motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-10EQ-9709, which was being driven by non- applicant No. 4 and owned by non-applicant No. 5. However, those persons fled from the spot, and the vehicle of the appellant was wrongly apprehended as the offending vehicle. Further, the Insurance Company failed to establish that the vehicle of the appellant was not insured at the time of the accident. The document produced by the insurer itself shows that the insurance policy was renewed on 20.02.2014 at 06:12:01 PM, valid up to 19.02.2015, which clearly covers the date of accident. Hence, the learned Tribunal erred in holding the appellant liable to pay the compensation. Moreover, non-applicant No. 4 categorically admitted that the accident occurred due to his motorcycle, yet the learned Tribunal failed to frame an issue on this aspect or to consider the same while deciding the claim petition. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal was duty-bound to examine the matter judiciously and impartially, without leaning towards any 4 party, and to ensure that no person suffers undue hardship. However, the findings recorded and the award passed are perverse, unreasonable, and contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, the appeal be allowed and the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 7. The learned Claims Tribunal, while deciding Question No. 2, has held in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the impugned award that the insurance policy of vehicle No.CG-10EN-8806 (offending vehicle) came into effect only from 06:12:01 PM on 20.02.2014, whereas the accident occurred earlier on the same date at around 10:00 AM. Therefore, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was not covered under any valid insurance policy, and consequently, Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. It was further observed that since the insurance coverage commenced subsequent to the occurrence of the accident, there was no subsisting contractual relationship between the owner of the vehicle and the insurer at the relevant time. Hence, entire liability for payment of compensation rightly rests upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, and no violation of policy terms or conditions arise in such circumstances. 8. After a careful and thoughtful consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and on 5 meticulous examination of the entire record, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and reached a well-reasoned conclusion that on the date and time of the accident, the offending vehicle was not covered under any valid insurance policy. The insurance policy (Ex.D/1) produced by the insurer clearly indicates that the coverage commenced at 06:12:01 PM on 20.02.2014, whereas the accident occurred earlier on the same day at around 10:00 AM. 9. Thus, it stands clearly established that at the time of the accident, no contractual relationship of insurance existed between the owner of the vehicle and the insurer. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly held that the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation, and the entire liability rests upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are based on sound appreciation of evidence and are neither perverse nor contrary to law. The appellant has failed to point out any material irregularity or legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction. 11. While the Court is not unmindful of the hardship faced by the claimants due to the unfortunate accident, it is equally bound by the settled principles of law that liability cannot be fastened upon 6 an insurer in absence of a valid and subsisting policy of insurance at the time of occurrence. 12. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is affirmed in toto. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. The record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be remitted forthwith along with a certified copy of this judgment for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh