1 2025:CGHC:15744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1249 of 2017 The Oriental Insurance Company Private Limited Through Division Office, Divisional Manager, Katchheri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Shri Rakesh Verma S/o Shri Dashrath Lal Verma, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Padkidih, Police Station Suhela, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Gauri Verma, W/o Shri Rakesh Verma, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Padkidih, Police Station Suhela, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sharda Singh S/o Indrapal Singh, Aged About 50 Years R/o Through Ashok Agrawal, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ashok Agrawal S/o Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, R/o Village Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No.1, 2 & 4 : None Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.04.08 12:42:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. ORDER ON BOARD (03.04.2025) 1. Heard. 2. It is an insurer’s appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 07.02.2017 passed by the 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) in Claim Case No.412/2014 whereby the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants/Respondents No.1 & 2. 3. The gist of claim before the Tribunal in short is that, on 06.05.2014 near Village Padkidih, respondent no.3 Sharda Singh, driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG 10 C 1651 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased Sahil @ Chiranjeet Verma aged about 7 years due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. The claimants who are the parents of the deceased, preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on various heads. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company against which the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company to be exonerated from the liability. 4. Also heard on application dated 31.07.2017 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that at the time of accident, the driver/Respondent No. 3 did not have a valid and effective driving licence. Hence, the driving licence brought on record is fake. Despite this, the Tribunal has 3 committed an error in not accepting the breach of policy. Hence, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. He further submits that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the Insurance Company wherein, it is stated that after verification of driving license of Respondent No.3 from Regional Transport Authority Allahabad, it was intimated by investigator Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava that D.L. No.81W/22786 of Respondent No.3, was not issued by Divisional Officer Allahabad and they will give information in form No.54 as and when they will get the photocopy of original driving license. Hence, it is prayed that the matter may be remanded back and the above documents may be taken on record. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 3 submits that at the time of accident, Respondent no.3 had possessed valid and effective driving license, therefore, the insurance conditions have not been violated in any terms and the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, application dated 31.07.2017 and and documents available on record. 8. The contention of learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company is that there was a breach of insurance policy as at the time of accident, the driver has not possessed any valid and effective driving license. In this regard, the document Property Seizure Memo (Exhibit P-03) produced and certified by the claimants’ side shows that the driving license of the offending vehicle’s driver, Sharda Singh, was seized during the investigation of Crime No. 76/14, registered in connection with the alleged accident by Police Station Suhela, District Baloda Bazar. The license number is recorded as 81W/22786, with validity until 08/06/2015. This clearly indicates that on the date of accident i.e. 06.05.2014, Respondent No. 3 possessed a valid and effective driving license. In the absence of any challenge or contradiction to 4 the authenticity of Exhibit P-03, as produced and certified by the claimants side, it cannot be deemed invalid. 9. The next contention of learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance Company is that the matter may be remanded back and the additional documents may be placed on record by filing application dated 31.07.2017, the documents attached with the application in this regard are only correspondence from the insurance company there is no prima facie evidence available on record that the license is fake. 10. As per the document (Ex.P-03), the Claims Tribunal has held that the appellant/insurance company has failed to refute the certified facts. This document establishes that on the date of the accident, 06.05.2014, the driver of the offending vehicle/ Respondent No. 3 held a valid and effective driving license for operating the offending vehicle. The Claims Tribunal has discussed this issue in detail in paragraphs 18 of its award and reached to the conclusion that the insurance company has failed to prove the breach of policy condition. In the light of above discussion, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the conclusion of the Claims Tribunal regarding liability. 11. Accordingly, the application dated 31.07.2017 is rejected and the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company being devoid of merit is dismissed. 12. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Shubham