1 2025:CGHC:47588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1804 of 2024 The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Office, Bus Stand Power House, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Non - Applicant No. 2) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Kisun Bai Wd/o - Late Shri Santuram Kunjam, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Matari, P.O.- Bhanwarmara, P.S. And Tahsil - Daundilohara, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No. 1). 2 - Narendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Santuram Kunjam, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Matari, P.O.- Bhanwarmara, P.S. And Tahsil - Daundilohara, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No. 2). 3 - Nagarjun S/o Late Shri Santuram Kunjam Aged About 18 Years R/o Village - Matari, P.O.- Bhanwarmara, P.S. And Tahsil - Daundilohara, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No. 3). 4 - Yogendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Santuram Kunjam Aged About 19 Years R/o Village - Matari, P.O.- Bhanwarmara, P.S. And Tahsil - Daundilohara, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No. 4). 5 - Maheshwar Manikpuri S/o Shri Vishnu Ram Manikpuri, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Bhimkanhar, P.S. - Suregaon, Tahsil - Daundilohara, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Registered Owner Of Motorcycle No. Cg- 24-P-4925) (Non-Applicant No. 1). 6 - Smt. Heerabai Kunjam Wd/o Late Parbal Singh Kunjam Aged About 62 Years R/o Village - Matari, P.O.- Bhanwarmara, P.S. And Tahsil - Daundilohara, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No. 3). Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 7- Dilip Kumar Maa Parmeshwari Tractors, Balod, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No. 4). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16/09/2025 1. Insurance company has assailed the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No.40/2021 dated 19.06.2024, whereby the learned Tribunal passed award to the tune of Rs. 16,23,450/- with interest @ 9 % per annum on account of death of one Santuram Kaunjam. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on date of accident, the Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-24-P-4925, was not having valid and effective driving license. He would contend that the burden was on the owner of the offending vehicle to prove the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was having effective driving license. He would submit that there was breach of conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the learned Tribunal committed error of law while fastening liability on the insurance company. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pappu and others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another reported in 2018 (1) TAC 360 (SC), wherein it has been held that liability of the insurer arises only after foundational facts regarding the driver’s license are pleaded and 3 proved by the owner of the offending vehicle.He would submit that the award passed by the learned claims Tribunal may be set-aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the learned tribunal framed specific issue No.3 in this regard and found it not proved. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 5. Heard. 6. In the case of Pappu (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered a situation where the owner of the offending vehicle in his written statement failed to disclose the name of the driver & did not plead that the driver possess a valid license, and further abstained from entering the witness box. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the insurer was not liable in the absence of foundational facts with regard to driving license. 7. In the present case, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their reply before the learned Tribunal & pleaded that the driver was in possession of a valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant Insurance Company. Once such particulars were disclosed, the burden shifted upon the insurer to establish that the driver was in fact not holding a valid license. 8. According to the provisions of Section 149 (2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Accidents Claim Act, 1988, the insurance company is entitled to avoid liability for a judgment or award if the policy has been breached by the insured in a way that excludes the use of the vehicle by a driver who does not hold a valid license. If details of the driver, name of the driver and other details have been provided by the Owner and driver in the reply to the claim case, then the burden shifts to the insurance company to prove the fact that the person driving the vehicle was not having effective and valid driving license. 4 9. However, the learned tribunal has considered this issue raised by Mr. Gupta, and decided it against insurance company. 10.Considering the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. 11.Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim