1 2025:CGHC:43963 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 599 of 2021 United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Shanti Palace , Mishra Complex , Nearby Sarla Villa, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Sukhlal Lakda S/o Mansay Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kadamdhodhi, Police Station Kapu , Tahsil Dharanjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sanjay Lakda S/o Sukhlal Lakda Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Kadamdhodhi, Police Station Kapu, Tahsil Dharanjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Anand Kumar S/o Sukhlal Lakda Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Sukhlal Lakda , R/o Village Kadamdhodhi, Police Station Kapu, Tahsil Dharanjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jaihind Gond S/o Chaitsay Gond Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Enjako Police Station And Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Cum Owner Of The Offending Vehicle). ... Respondents {Cause title is taken from Case Information System} For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondents : None for the respondents, though served 2 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order On Board 29/08/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth “MV Act”) has been filed by the appellant / Insurance Company assailing legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned award dated 20.07.2021 passed by Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) {for short, ‘Claims Tribunal’ } in M.A.C.T. Case No. 06/2019. 2. By the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 16,94,704.00/- in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3/ claimants as compensation on account of death of deceased namely Teresa Bai in the motor accident that occurred on 08.08.2018 due to rash & negligent driving of Auto sold bearing Registration No. C.G. 14 M.H. 5161 (offending vehicle) by its driver -cum-owner /respondent No. 4 – Jaihind Gond. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant / Insurance Company. Further, the Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant / Insurance Company. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.47,00,000/- pleading inter alia that on 08.08.2018 at about 9 O’clock deceased – Tersa Bai was travelling in the offending vehicle, which was being driven by its driver-cum-owner – respondent No. 4 rashly & negligently and near Dudhiya canal of village Kadamdhodhi, the offending vehicle turned-turtle, due to which, the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to those injuries in the spot itself whereas other passengers sitting in the said vehicle sustained injuries in the said accident. The deceased was earning 3 Rs.12,000/- per month by selling vegetables. The appellants, being spouse and children of deceased – Tersa Bai, were dependent upon her income, therefore, they have claimed aforesaid amount of compensation. 4. Respondent No. 4 /driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle filed a written statement denying the avermants made in the claim petition stating inter alia that on the alleged date of incident, he was having a valid & effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle is insured with the insurance company/appellant and there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, liability to pay compensation to the claimants is upon the appellant / insurance company. 5. Appellant/insurance company filed its written statement denying the substantive pleading made by claimants and pleaded that the sitting capacity of the offending vehicle was 4 persons whereas at the time of incident seven persons were travelling in the offending vehicle, thus, the vehicle is being driven in violation of rules of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid & effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. He also did not have fitness and documents in the offending vehicle, as such, appellant / Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the claimants. 6. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as 6 issues, decided those issues in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3 / claimants and against the Insurance Company holding it liable to pay compensation to the claimants, which led to filing instant appeal. 4 7. Mr. Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently argued that finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to payment of compensation by the Insurance company is liable to be set aside. He would also submit that the respondent No. 4 / driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid & effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of incident, as such, there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He submits that Ms. Pramila Gajbhiye (NAW-1), Branch Manager of the insurance company was also examined before the learned Claims Tribunal, who has proved the terms and conditions of the same and, as such, the respondent No. 4 /driver- cum-owner was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 3/181 of the MV Act, which goes to show that he has no valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of incident. He further submits that though the respondent No. 4/driver -cum- owner was represented but driving license held by him was not valid, therefore, he submits that since it is proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of incident, therefore, appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants, therefore, the finding recorded by Claims Tribunal on issue No. 3 may be set aside and the Insurance Company may be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pappu Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 592. 8. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and perused the documents available on record. 5 10. The only question which requires for consideration before this Court is as to whether the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal on issue No. 3 with regard to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy or not. 11. The written statement was filed by the appellant/insurance company pleading inter alia that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid & effective driving license. Perusal of record of Claims Tribunal also indicates that respondent No. 4/driver-cum-owner was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 3/181 & 66/92 of the MV Act. Apart from this, witness of the insurance company contended that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license and also proved the terms and conditions of the insurance policy (Ex.D-1). Further, from the perusal of record, it appears that neither any details of licence held by respondent No. 4 is available nor copy of Insurance Policy was available. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pappu (Supra) in paragraph 11 has held as under:- 11. The question is: whether the fact that the offending vehicle bearing No.DIL-5955 was duly insured by respondent No.2 Insurance Company would per se make the Insurance Company liable? This Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), has noticed the defences available to the Insurance Company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Insurance Company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorised person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on the Insurance Company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time. In the present case, the 6 respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle merely raised a vague plea in the Written Statement that the offending vehicle DIL-5955 was being driven by a person having valid driving licence. He did not disclose the name of the driver and his other details. Besides, the respondent No.1 did not enter the witness box or examine any witness in support of this plea. The respondent No.2 Insurance Company in the Written Statement has plainly refuted that plea and also asserted that the offending vehicle was not driven by an authorised person and having valid driving licence. The respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle did not produce any evidence except a driving licence of one Joginder Singh, without any specific stand taken in the pleadings or in the evidence that the same Joginder Singh was, in fact, authorised to drive the vehicle in question at the relevant time. Only then would onus shift, requiring the respondent No.2 Insurance Company to rebut such evidence and to produce other evidence to substantiate its defence. Merely producing a valid insurance certificate in respect of the offending Truck was not enough for the respondent No.1 to make the Insurance Company liable to discharge his liability arising from rash and negligent driving by the driver of his vehicle. The Insurance Company can be fastened with the liability on the basis of a valid insurance policy only after the basic facts are pleaded and established by the owner of the offending vehicle - that the vehicle was not only duly insured but also that it was driven by an authorised person having a valid driving licence. Without disclosing the name of the driver in the Written Statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability. The Insurance Company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle. 7 13. Therefore, in light of afore-cited law laid down by the Supreme Court, finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal with respect to issue No. 3 holding appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants appears to be not based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record, as until & unless details of driving licence is not available on record, the validity of same cannot be ascertain by the appellant/Insurance Company. In the case in hand, the respondent No. 4 was contesting before the learned Tribunal and despite granting ample opportunity to produce driving licence, he failed to produce the same before the learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, the finding with regard to issue No. 3 that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 14. Considering every aspects of the matter, in my opinion, the Tribunal has erred in saddling the liability upon the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant. 15. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. Part of the award by which the liability has been saddled upon the appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited to pay compensation to the claimants is set aside. Award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. 16. However, in light of the Judgment of Pappu (Supra) the appellant/Insurance Company shall satisfy the award in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from respondent No. 4 (Driver-cum- Owner) of the offending vehicle. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput,) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.08 17:48:33 +0530