1 2025:CGHC:32373 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1407 of 2018 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Rama Trade Centre, 1st Floor, Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Sukhmaniya Wd/o Late Gobind Ram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Gobindpur, Police Station Bishrampur Tahsil Surajpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramesh S/o Late Gobind Ram Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Gobindpur, Police Station Bishrampur Tahsil Surajpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Rajesh S/o Late Gobind Ram Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Gobindpur, Police Station Bishrampur Tahsil Surajpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh 4 - Shakil Mansoori S/o Sharif Mansoori, Driver, R/o Qtr. No. 39, Bajpai Kaushal, Vinoba Colony Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 5 - Akhilesh Vishwakarma S/o Vachandev Vishwakarma Aged About 45 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Shakti Nagar, Police Station Shaktinagar, Police Station Bishrampur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Driver) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 11.07.2025 1. I.A. No.02, an application for condontaion of delay in preferring the appeal and I.A. No.3, an exemption from filing certified copy of YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.16 13:10:58 +0530 2 the order passed by learned Claims Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are hereby allowed on the grounds assigned in the applications. 2. Since the matter is of the year 2018 and the accident occurred in the year 2010, this Court is proceeded to finally decide the matter. 3. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.38/2012 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 4. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 25.06.2010, at about 6.00 PM, Suresh Pando (since deceased) along with his friends was going from Laxmangarh on Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-15/C/3319, when they reached near village Rikkhee Baigapara, one Truck Trailer bearing registration No.CG-10/C/4690 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) dashed the motorcycle, due to which Suresh Pando fell down and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 5. The claimants have filed the claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.11,25,000/- on various heads. 6. Respondents No.4 and 5/non-applicants No.2 and 3 were proceeded ex-parte before the learned Claims Tribunal. 3 7. The appellant/non-applicant No.1 filed its written statement in which it has denied the contents of the petition and further stated that claimants have pleaded excessive amount of monthly income of the deceased. It has been further pleaded that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to mistake on the part of the deceased, as such, Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 8. 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.9,77,200/- along with interest @ 9% 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 Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company as on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not having valid permit. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded excessive amount of compensation, which needs to be reduced suitably. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 4 11. The learned Claims Tribunal, in paragraph 15 of the impugned award, has dealt with the issue of the valid permit of the offending vehicle and held that the offending vehicle, which caused the accident, was seized in working condition. It further held that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy from 10.06.2010 to 09.06.2011, and its fitness certificate was valid from 18.06.2010 to 17.06.2012. 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 liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company, as on the date of the accident, i.e., 25.06.2010, the offending vehicle had a valid permit, and the driver of the offending vehicle held a valid and effective driving licence. 13. In the result, the ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is not tenable. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be, and is hereby, dismissed. 14. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Sd/-d/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh