1 2025:CGHC:33327 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1940 of 2019 1 - Jagdamba Power And Alloys Limited A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At G-16, Heera Arcade, Pandri, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Rambai Wd/o Late Tejram Aged About 47 Years R/o Ameri, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mukesh S/o Late Tejam Aged About 22 Years R/o Ameri, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ravindra S/o Late Tejam Aged About 40 Years R/o Gram Madhai, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Suresh S/o Late Tejram Aged About 38 Years R/o Gram Madhai, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sushil S/o Tejram Aged About 35 Years R/o Gram Madhai, Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Jagat Singh S/o Manglu Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Gram Pali, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7 - National Insurance Company Limited Tah Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Serai Equipment Finance Private Limited Having Regd. Office At Vishwakarma 86-L, Topasia Road (South), Kolkate - 700046 2 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Mittal, Advocate along with Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 16/07/2025 1. Appellant owner of the offending vehicle filed this appeal challenging the impugned award passed by learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 621/2012 whereby, the Tribunal allowed application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act, 1988). 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 28.06.2014, deceased Tejram was returning to his home at Village Madai, when he reached near Ambikapur Rest House, Madai, Non-Applicant No. 1 while driving his vehicle i.e. Trailor bearing registration no. CG 04 JC 3112, rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of Tejram. In the accident, Tejram suffered grievous injuries over his person and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Subsequent to the said accident, F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 24/2012, P.S. Bango, District Korba was registered against the Respondent No. 6 for the offences punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Claimants who are widow and children of the deceased filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehciles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 46,92,000/- with interest. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the the appellants/owner of the offending vehicle. He contended that the appellant at the time of 3 engaging driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the Non-Applicant No. 1 has perused his license and after satisfaction from the contents of the license to be a valid and effective license has engaged him to drive the offending vehicle. He pointed out that till accident, there was not dispute with regard to the illegality and validity of the license, However, after the accident, insurance company has verified the license and upon verification, it revealed that the copy of the license which was shown and seized by the police was a forged document and hence, for such act of the Non-Applicant No. 1/Driver, the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle cannot be held liable and therefore, the liability fastened upon the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle be set-aside and liability to satisfy award be fastened upon the Respondent No. 7, insurer of the offending vehicle. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 7 would oppose the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the Appellant/Non-Applicant No. 2 i.e. owner of the offending vehicle in his reply to the claim application has not taken such a stand that he perused the copy of license of the Non-Applicant No. 1/Driver before engaging him as Driver of his vehicle neither is his evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal and therefore, such grond which is raised for the first time before this Court in an appeal cannot be accepted. The Claims Tribunal considering that on the date, Non- Applicant No. 1/Respondent No.6 driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license held that, there was breach of policy conditions, exonerated the Insurance Company from it liability to indemnify the insured; however, at the same time has issued a direction for pay and recover to the Respondent No. 7/Non-Applicant 4 No. 3. The impugned award is well merited and it does not call for any interference. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 8 also adopts the submission of the counsel for the Respondent No. 7. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 7. To appreciate the submission of the counsel for the appellant, I have perused the copy of reply to claim application submitted by the Non- Applicant No. 2/Appellant. From perusal of the reply, it is appearing that Non-Applicant No. 2/Appellant later on amended the pleadings made in reply on 06.09.2018 in compliance with the order dated 04.09.2018. The Non-Applicant No. 7 submitted its reply on 12.01.2016 in which, specific plea has been taken that the driver on the date of accident, was not possessed with valid and effective driving license, however, even thereafter has not made any pleadings, which is raised before this Court. 8. The Non-Applicant No. 2/Appellant entered into the witness box as NAW-2/1. In his evidence also, he has not specifically stated that before engaging the Non-Applicant No. 1 as driver, he recorded his satisfaction, after perusal of the copy of license of the Non-Applicant No. 1 to be valid and effective license. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, Non-Applicant No. 2/Appellant being transporter, employed and engaged Non-Applicant No. 1 as a driver has not taken proper care even to look into the license of the person who is being engaged as Driver to drive the heavy goods vehicle. 5 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when plea, as raised before this Court, was not taken before the learned Claims Tribunal either in the pleadings or in the evidence, the appellant will not be permitted to raise said ground before this Court. Accordingly, the ground raised by the counsel for the appellant is not sustainable and accordingly, it is repelled. No other ground is raised by the counsel for appellant before this Court. 10.For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey