(MAC No.936/2022) 2025:CGHC:41190 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 936 of 2022 1. Smt. Pooja Bai, W/o late Suresh Patel, Aged about 27 years, 2. Kartik, S/o late Suresh Patel, Aged about 12 years, 3. Ku. Sandhya, D/o late Suresh Patel, Aged about 9 years, 4. Dujram, S/o Late Lagnuram Patel, Aged about 54 years, Appellants No.2 & 3 are minors represented through mother Smt. Pooja Bai, All R/o Village Bhakurra Nawapara, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Radheshyam, S/o Keshavram Patel, Aged about 41 years, R/o Village Bhakurra Nawapara, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner) 2. Ifco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, C/o Branch Manager, Branch Office, Galaxy Heights, Vyapar Vihar Road, Near I.C.I.C.I Bank, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company) ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.08.20 18:28:39 +0530 (MAC No.936/2022) Judgment on Board 14/08/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) has been preferred by the appellants herein/claimants challenging the impugned award dated 30-6- 2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.286/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition holding that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. 2. Suresh Kumar Patel, aged about 28 years, while driving the offending vehicle tractor bearing registration No.CG-10/AN- 5309 owned by Radheshyam Patel – respondent No.1 herein, died, as the said tractor all of a sudden turned turtle, leading to filing of application under Section 163A of the Act of 1988, which came to be dismissed by the Claims Tribunal holding that application under Section 163A is not maintainable, as the deceased was nephew of the owner and consequently, that the deceased did not have valid and effective driving license to drive the said tractor leading to filing of this appeal under Section 173 of the Act of 1988. 3. Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants herein/claimants, would submit that there is uncontroverted evidence on record that the deceased was though relative of Radheshyam Patel – (MAC No.936/2022) respondent No.1, but he was in the employment of respondent No.1 as driver and as such, liability of driver was clearly covered under the policy as vide Ex.D-1 – Insurance Policy, legal liability to driver was covered as premium of ₹ 50/- was paid under that head, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay a fixed amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- under Second Schedule to Section 163 of the Act of 1988. 4. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 herein/Insurance Company, would submit that deceased Suresh Kumar Patel was not the driver, as he was nephew of owner Radheshyam Patel and he has forcefully took the keys of the tractor from the owner and furthermore, he did not have valid and effective driving license to drive the said tractor. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not responsible and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was in the employment of Radheshyam Patel – owner of the tractor, which the claimants have pleaded in para 3 of the claim petition and same has also been proved by claimant Smt. Pooja Bai Patel in para 2 of her affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and even in the cross-examination on behalf of (MAC No.936/2022) the Insurance Company, as she has clearly stated that her husband used to work in the employment of Radheshyam Patel – owner of the vehicle. Therefore, it was duly established that the deceased was driver working under Radheshyam Patel and the finding of the Claims Tribunal that he was not the driver of respondent No.1 Radheshyam Patel is perverse to the record and liable to be set aside. 7. It is not in dispute and rather it stands proved vide Ex.D-1 that Legal Liability to Driver is covered as separate premium has been paid and liability would be to the extent of ₹ 5,00,000/- as per the Schedule amended from 22-5-2018 provided the deceased must have valid driving license to drive the offending tractor. In this behalf, the Insurance Company has pleaded that the deceased did not have valid and effective driving license and once the Insurance Company has taken plea that the deceased did not have valid and effective driving license, it has to be proved by the Insurance Company. Law Officer of the respondent Insurance Company Mr. Pranav Sharma has stated in his statement before the Court that the deceased did not have permanent driving license to drive the vehicle, but it is a self- serving statement made on behalf of the Insurance Company, as there is no investigation conducted and report filed on behalf of the Insurance Company to make such statement before the Court. Statement of the Law Officer must have been supported (MAC No.936/2022) by the investigation report duly supported and verified by the concerned RTO. Even otherwise, the document which has been sent to the owner/driver of the vehicle to produce the document showing license etc., has not been filed by the Insurance Company. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the deceased did not have valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Accordingly, the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside and the claimants are held entitled to an amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- as compensation along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, which the Insurance Company is liable to pay within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is ordered accordingly. 9. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above with no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma