1 2025:CGHC:21049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1000 of 2015 • Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Office Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant Versus 1. Govinda Yadav, aged about 21 years, S/o Late Gajanand Yadav, 2. Ku. Seema Yadav, aged about 18 years, D/o Late Gajanand Yadav, Respondent No.1 and 2 are R/o Village Memradih, P.S. and Tehsil Pithora, District – Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, 3. Mohd. Iliyas, aged about 32 years, S/o Mohd Ishak, R/o Nayapara, Mahasamund, P.S. and Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh,…… Driver 4. Girish Gandecha S/o Late Ramdik Gandecha, R/o Near Mining Office Mahabeer Nagar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,…. Owner ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 07.05.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant – The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 22.04.2015 passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (in short ‘the Tribunal’) wherein in Claim Case No.135/2011, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,42,000/- in favour of the claimants and against the non-applicant Nos.1, 2 & 3 jointly and severally, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation. PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.09 15:42:55 +0530 2 2. As per averments made in the claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on 28.04.2011 at about 05:00 AM, Gajanand Yadav (deceased) was going on road on foot towards Baldidih. At that time, on the way, non-applicant No.1/driver of a truck (tanker) bearing registration No.CG-04-JA-3692 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) who was driving in a rash and negligent manner dashed Gajanand Yadav, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 – Girish Gandecha and insured with non-applicant No.3 – Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. As per the claim petition, deceased Gajanand Yadav was a labour (Rajmistri) and he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. 3. A claim petition has been filed by the claimants claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.19,90,000/- on various heads, stating, inter alia, that the deceased was working as Rajmistri and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal, considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed an award as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues on the basis of pleadings and decided the same in favour of the claimants/respondent No.1 & 2 (herein), while awarding compensation amount as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this judgment and fixed the liability over non- applicant Nos.1,2 & 3 jointly and severally to pay the compensation. 5. Being aggrieved, the insurer - The Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited has preferred this appeal. Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently submits that though the appellant-insurance company is the insurer of the truck (tanker), but the 3 alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the unknown vehicle and in order to get the compensation, the claimants have falsely involved the tanker (truck). He further submits that after the accident, report was lodged by one Gopi Yadav, brother of the deceased against unknown vehicle and that said Gopi Yadav has not been examined by the claimants. This apart, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle. On these premises, it is urged by learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company that the insurance company be exonerated from its liability. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Baijnath and Another Vs. Chandrika Prasad Sahu and Other reported in 2008 (1) CGLJ 307 (DB). 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1& 2/claimants, while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed by them against the impugned award, supports the impugned award and submits that for proving the above facts, the insurance company has not examined any witness on its behalf. Further, the insurance company has not produced any document to show that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. He also submits that after the investigation, the police has filed the final report (Ex.P-1) against the driver (non-applicant No.1) of the offending vehicle under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly fastened the liability upon the insurance company which needs no interference by this Court. 4 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Now, the question that arises for consideration as to whether the learned Claims Tribunal was justified in fixing the liability upon the insurance company? 9. Jitendra Yadav (AW-02) who is cited as the eye witness to the incident, has deposed that on the date of accident i.e. on 28.04.2011, he along with his friend Gajanand Yadav (deceased) were going on road, at that time driver of the offending vehicle by driving the same in a rash and negligent manner dashed Gajanand Yadav, as a result of which he died on the spot. 10.Govind Yadav (AW-01) who is the son of the deceased has deposed that at the time of alleged accident, he was not present at the spot, therefore, he is unable to depose regarding the accident caused by which vehicle. This witness in his cross-examination has further admitted that though he was not present at the spot, but he along with other persons involved a vehicle in the accident and said that the accident occurred with the said vehicle, however, he has not specifically stated that he has falsely involved the said vehicle. 11.Thus, from the perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that a report (Ex.P-2) was lodged by one Gopi Yadav (not examined) against the unknown vehicle but the police after the investigation, seized the offending vehicle along with the documents from the possession of the driver/non-applicant No.1 on the same day at about 01:10 PM vide seizure memo (Ex.P-7) within four hours from lodging of the report (Ex.P-2). Moreover, after investigation, the police has filed the final report (Ex.P-1) against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 5 304-A IPC and 184 of MV Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithoura but no counter report with respect to his false implication has been lodged by the driver of the offending vehicle before the police. This apart, the insurance company has not examined the investigating officer of the case and any other witness on its behalf to show that the offending vehicle was not involved in the said accident and that, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have also not examined themselves before the Tribunal. That apart, counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle but the seizure memo (Ex.P-7) would show that the license which was seized from the driver of the offending vehicle was valid till 15.07.2013 whereas the accident occurred on 28.04.2011, meaning thereby, at the time of accident, the driver was holding driving license. 12.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Ranjeet & Another V. Abdul Kayam Neb and Another passed SLP (C) No.10351/2019 dated 25.02.2025, has held in paragraph 4 which reads as under: “It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye- witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver.” 13.Thus, considering the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred matter and further considering the fact that after the investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate 6 First Class, Pithoura which clearly shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1. Besides this, the insurance company has not examined any witness in its behalf to prove that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the alleged accident and that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle has also not been examined. This apart, it is not disputed that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company and that the insurance company has failed to prove any breach of policy conditions by the driver of the offending vehicle. Having gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant and the principles of law laid down therein, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid judgment, being distinguishable on facts, is of no help to the counsel for the appellant. In that view of the matter, I am of the view, that the learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence and materials available on record, has rightly fastened the liability upon the insurance company, which needs no interference by this Court. 14.In the result, the appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash