Page No.1 of 6 IN MAC-1707-2023, MAC-1715-2023, MAC-1718-2023 & MAC-1738-2023 2025:CGHC:47561 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1707 of 2023 Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address - Office No. 501 And 512, 5th Floor, D. B. City Corporate Park, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Samaylal Yadav S/o Shri Tiharu Yadav Aged About 63 Years Village Kalyanpur, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sarojini Yadav W/o Shri Samaylal Yadav Aged About 56 Years Village Kalyanpur, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tejeshwar Sahu S/o Shri Jayprakash Permanent Resident Of - Village Kalyanpur, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir, Champa, Chhattisgarh, Present Resident Of - Through Bramhanand Verma, Mining Office Bhag Pujari Puraina, Telibandha, Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WITH MAC No. 1715 of 2023 Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address- Office No. 501 And 512, 5th Floor, D.B. City Corporate Park, Block No.9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Kamlesh Yadav S/o Shri Chotelal Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Barbhata Chariya, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Claimant) SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 6 IN MAC-1707-2023, MAC-1715-2023, MAC-1718-2023 & MAC-1738-2023 2 - Tejeshwar Sahu S/o Shri Jayprakash Permanent Resident Of Village Kalyanpur, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Resident Of- Through Bramhanand Verma, Mining Office Bhag Pujari Puraina, Telibandha, P.S. Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner Vehicle No. C.G. 10-Nb-0981) --- Respondents WITH MAC No. 1718 of 2023 Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address Office No. 501 And 512, 5th Floor, D.B. City Corporate Park, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Shyamlal Yadav S/o Shri Tiharu Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o Penkapara, Kalyanpur, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Tijbai Yadav W/o Shri Shyamlal Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o Penkapara, Kalyanpur, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Tejeshwar Sahu S/o Shri Jaypraksah, Permanent R/o Village Kalyanpur, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Resident Of Through Bramhanand Verma, Mining Office Bhag Pujari Puraina, Telibandha, P.S. Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WITH MAC No. 1738 of 2023 Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address- Office No. 501 And 512, 5th Floor, D.B. City Corporate Park, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Ku. Himanchal Yadav D/o Shri Suresh Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Chandipara, Pamgarh, P.S. Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Tejeshwar Sahu S/o Shri Jayprakash Permanent Resident Of- Village Kalyanpur, P.S. Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Present Resident Of - Through Bramhanand Verma, Page No.3 of 6 IN MAC-1707-2023, MAC-1715-2023, MAC-1718-2023 & MAC-1738-2023 Mining Office Bhag Pujari Puraina, Telibandha, P.S. Telibandha, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondents/Claimants: Mr. R.K. Thakur, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 16.09.2025 1. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of facts and law involved, though arising out of 04 different claim cases and awards, but accident in question is one, therefore, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, all these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of clarity, facts are taken from MAC-1707-2023 being lead case. 2. The facts of the case, in short, are that on the date of occurrence i.e. 02.05.2019, the driver (deceased) of the offending vehicle (Car) bearing No. CG-10-NB-0981, which was owned by the respondent No.3 and insured by the appellant- Insurance Company, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and turned turtle the same, due to which, the driver of the offending vehicle, Ku. Sangeeta Yadav and Shivam Yadav (who were also travelling in the said vehicle) suffered injuries and died, whereas the other occupants of the vehicle, namely, Himachal Yadav and Kamlesh Yadav Page No.4 of 6 IN MAC-1707-2023, MAC-1715-2023, MAC-1718-2023 & MAC-1738-2023 sustained grievous injuries. Resultantly, the dependents of deceased persons- Sangeeta Yadav and Shivam Yadav and injured- Himachal Yadav and Kamlesh Yadav filed separate claim applications, which were decided by the Court of Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) vide awards dated 17.08.2023, whereby respective amounts of compensations were awarded and same were held to be payable by the appellant- Insurance Company herein. Feeling aggrieved at which, the appellant- Insurance Company has preferred these four appeals questioning the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to fastening the liability to pay compensation upon them. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company submits two fold submissions: (i) on the date and time of the accident, the offending vehicle (car) bearing No. CG-10-NB-0981 was being used for commercial purpose vis-a-vis carrying passengers/Barites (wedding procession), which is not permissible and same is in breach of policy condition and (ii) at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was also not having valid and effective driving license. As such, the appellant- Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Claimants supported the impugned awards and prays Page No.5 of 6 IN MAC-1707-2023, MAC-1715-2023, MAC-1718-2023 & MAC-1738-2023 for dismissal of all the four appeals. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. In the case at hand, so far as first ground of attack, i.e. on the date and time of the accident, the offending vehicle (car) bearing No. CG-10-NB-0981 was being used for commercial purpose vis-a-vis carrying passengers/Barites (wedding procession), which is not permissible and same is in breach of policy condition, is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has firstly taken into consideration the statement of claimant, namely, Kamlesh, whereby he has clearly stated that at the tine of accident in question they have not hired any vehicle for carrying Barites and used their own car. However, the officer of the appellant- Insurance Company i.e. Assistant Manager has stated in his cross-examination that private car (i.e. vehicle in question) can be used for carrying Barites for family function. Accordingly, the learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that there is no breach of the terms and condition of the insurance policy, as the vehicle in question can be used for carrying Barites in family function. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, as the same is based on evidence available on record. I hereby affirmed the said finding. Page No.6 of 6 IN MAC-1707-2023, MAC-1715-2023, MAC-1718-2023 & MAC-1738-2023 7. Similarly, the next ground which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to ply the same is concerned, a careful perusal of the record would show that no specific evidence has been led by the insurance company to prove/establish the said fact. Even, the officer of the concerned RTO and the Investigating Officer of the incident in question, have not been examined to prove the said fact. As such, the learned Claims Tribunal proceeded to fasten the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant- Insurance company herein on the ground that breach of policy condition is not found proved, which finding in the considered opinion of this Court, is correct finding of fact based on evidence/material available on record. Accordingly, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned awards, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 8. Consequently, I do not find any merit in these appeals. It deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if