1 (MAC No. 1857 of 2018) 2025:CGHC:19367 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1857 of 2018 1 - Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Assistant Manager Legal, 2nd Floor Simran Tower Opposite Of Lic Building Pandri Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Bhuneshwar S/o Kheduram Aged About 60 Years Castee - Nirmalkar (Dhobi) R/o Tarsinwa P.S. Arjuni, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Nilkamal S/o Bhuneshwar, Aged About 23 Years Caste - Nirmalkar (Dhobi) R/o Tarsinwa P.S. Arjuni, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 3 - Chandrhas S/o Bhuneshawar Aged About 21 Years Caste - Nirmalkar (Dhobi) R/o Tarsinwa P.S. Arjuni, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 4 - Chandrmani S/o Bhuneshwar Aged About 21 Years Caste - Nirmalkar (Dhobi) R/o Tarsinwa P.S. Arjuni, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 5 - Dayalu Ram S/o Sadhuram Aged About 29 Years Caste - Dhruw R/o Village - Bendranawagaon P.S. Rudri, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 6 - Purushottam S/o Chowaram Aged About 37 Years Caste - Sen R/o Village - Bhatgaon, P.S. Rudri, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Owner) --- Respondent(s) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.05.03 11:28:06 +0530 2 (MAC No. 1857 of 2018) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant :- Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 :-Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 29.04.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of award dated 28.07.2018, passed by the learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in Claim Case No.157/2016, whereby the appellant-insurance company has been held liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,50,500/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Thousand Five Hundred only) to the claimants/dependents of the deceased along with 6% interest rate from the date of application till the payment of the said award/compensation. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the offending vehicle had valid permit on the date and time of the accident and that the appellant has failed to 3 (MAC No. 1857 of 2018) establish the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. She would further submit that on the date of accident, 40-50 persons including the deceased were traveling in the goods vehicle as gratuitous passengers, therefore, their risk is neither covered under the policy nor under the statute. As such, the learned Claims tribunal has committed grave legal error in passing the impugned award and the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would support the impugned award. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, the only contention that has been raised on behalf of the appellant is that the insured vehicle is admittedly light motor vehicle (goods vehicle) but on the date of accident, it was being used in violation of the terms & conditions of the policy and the deceased was traveling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger, as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 4 (MAC No. 1857 of 2018) 6. However, a careful perusal of order/award dated 28.07.2018, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal would show that on behalf of the appellant-insurance company, two witnesses – Lakhanlal Dhruw, Assistant Grade-I and Jaiprakash Sahu, Assistant Grade-II at the District Transport Office, Dhamtari have been examined, in which Lakhanlal Dhruw, AG-I has only stated that the vehicle was insured and registered as light motor vehicle (goods vehicle) and it cannot be used as a passenger vehicle but he has not said that the vehicle was plied without having valid permit as a passenger vehicle on the date of the accident. It has also been stated that no complaint has been made in the Regional Transport Office that the offending vehicle at any point of time was being used as passenger vehicle in breach of terms & conditions of the policy. Similarly, the other witness - Jaiprakash Sahu, AG- II has also not stated that the vehicle was plied in breach of the terms & conditions of the policy. In that view of the matter, there is no evidence at all that the vehicle was plied in breach of terms & conditions of the policy on the date of accident and, therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the offending vehicle had valid permit on the date of accident and that the appellant has failed to 5 (MAC No. 1857 of 2018) establish the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy is a correct finding of fact based on materials available on records and the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely justified in passing the award in favour of the claimants. 7. As such, I do not find any merit in this appeal preferred by the insurance company, it deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. 8. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!