1 2025:CGHC:24219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 127 of 2019 1. Nagendra Singh S/o Shri Kamal Singh Aged About 58 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, Resident Of Mandi Chowk, In Front Rma Mandir, Pandritarai, P.S. Pandri District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner). 2. Sushant Sethi S/o Shri Kumar Sethi, Aged About 24 Years Occupation - Vehicle Driver, R/o Khetrajpur, P.S. Laxmi Talkies, District Sambalpur (Odisa), (Driver). ….Appellants versus 1. Smt. Monika sharma w/o late Hari Om Sharma aged about 27 years r/o LIG 1296, Sector-8, housing board colony, saddhu, p.s. Pandri, Mowa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Priyanshu Sharma S/o Late Hariom Aged About 9 Years (Minor), Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Monika Sharma, W/o Late Hariom Sharma, R/o LIG 1296, Sector -8, Housing Board Colony, Saddhu, P.S. Pandri, Mowa Raipur Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 3. Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Maruti Heritage, Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anamika Jain on behalf of Mr. Deverishi Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Ms. Laxmi Gupta, Advocate on behalf of 2 Mr. Pragalbh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. S. Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ratan Pusty, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 16/6/2025 1. Appellants-owner and driver, have filed this appeal challenging the liability fastened upon them by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) of paying the amount of compensation to claimants as awarded by its vide award dated 13.4.2018 in Claim Case No.704/2014. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 28.3.2014 at about 11:45 a.m. on Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur the truck bearing registration mark CG04-ZC-0485, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed motorcycle bearing registration mark CG04-DD-8291 and caused accident. In the said accident, Hariom Sharma and Rishi Kumar Sahu, rider and pillion of motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries and died. Accident was reported in concerned police station. Claimants, who are widow and son of deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.82,20,000/- on the ground that deceased died in a road accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver. They 3 pleaded the occupation of deceased Hariom Sharma as contractor and income therefrom as Rs.20,000/- per month. 3. Non-applicant No.1-driver did not turn up before the Claims Tribunal, hence,he was proceeded ex-parte. Non-applicant No.2 owner of offending vehicle filed reply denying allegation of negligent driving and pleading that accident resulting in death of deceased occurred due to negligent driving of motorcycle by its driver. Insurance Company also filed a separate reply pleading that offending vehicle was not insured with it, the documents of insurance produced by owner of offending vehicle are forged and have not been issued by insurance company. At the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, even there was no fitness certificate and permit. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the materials brought on record by the parties, came to the conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver; the offending vehicle was not insured with non-applicant No.3 at the time of accident; awarded total compensation of Rs.25,90,000/- and fastened liability upon the driver and owner of offending vehicle. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the 4 Claims Tribunal grossly erred in law in fastening liability on the appellants and exonerating the insurance company. She submits that insurance policy as issued by respondent No.3 and premium has also been paid. Respondent No.3 has not issued any notice to appellant No.1, owner of offending vehicle, that cover note of Sr. No.JPR3838389, which was issued to owner of offending vehicle, is missing. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought not to have exonerated respondent No.3 only on the ground that cover note has been lost and FIR has been lodged for the same. She further submits that the age of claimant No.1 and the deceased is appearing to be one and the same i.e. 27 years, which is suggestive of the fact that PAN card and Voter Identity Card issued in their favour are forged and fabricated documents. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 vehemently opposes submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the offending vehicle was never insured with respondent No.3. He submits that Cover Note bearing No.JPR3838389 in respect of offending vehicle was lost and FIR to that effect in concerned police station was also lodged. Under these circumstances, the finding of the Claims Tribunal exonerating respondent No.3 does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and 5 perused record of claim case including impugned award. 8. The Claims Tribunal exonerated respondent No.3 Insurance Company from its liability recording that there was no insurance contract between the insured and insurer and as such, the insurer i.e. respondent No.3, is not bound to satisfy the impugned award. 9. Respondent No.3 had emphatically pleaded in written statement that respondent No.3 is not the insurer of offending vehicle and Cover Note of Sr. No.JPR3838389 has not been issued by the office of respondent No.3 because the same has been lost. In this regard the Law Officer of respondent No.3 namely Punit Rathore (NAW-1) was examined, who has stated that the cover notes of Cover Note No.JPR 3838389 had been lost regarding which a written complaint (Ex.D-1) was lodged in Police Station Amanaka, Raipur on 3.8.2013. He stated that a public notice (Ex.D-2) with respect to loss of cover note book bearing No.JPR 3838389 was also got published by the respondent No.3 in the daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar on 15.6.2014 thereby informing the public at large regarding the loss of the said cover note. He has further stated that cover note of Sr. No.JPR 3838389 produced in the matter is infact the lost cover note regarding which information was given in police station and notice was published in newspaper giving numbers of lost cover notes, 6 mentioning that use of said cover note and proposal FORM leafs will be treated as illegal. In case of misuse lost cover notes then insurance company will not be liable for the same. 10. Ex.D-1 is the complaint made by one Rakesh Kumar Pandey with Police Station Amanaka, Raipur with respect of lost of documents including blank Cover Note bearing Sr. No.JPR 3838389. Respondent No.3 had also produced copies of judgment passed by the court of Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, Gadhchiroli wherein also insurance policy bears cover note of serial number, which is subject matter of FIR lodged and public notice was issued in case at hand, and the Court at Gadhchiroli finding substance on the defence of insurance company has held that there is no contract of indemnity in force on the day of incident between non- applicant Nos.1 and 2 covering the risk of death or injury of employee. 11. A copy of alleged insurance policy of offending vehicle is available in record of the Claims Tribunal and a glance of which would show that it has been issued on 25.1.2014. Whereas, the complaint regarding lost of cover note of serial mentioned in the policy alleged to have been issued in favour of appellant No.1 on 25.1.2014, has already been lodged on 3.8.2013 i.e. much before the accident in question which occurred on 28.3.2014. 7 12. Thus, it can be seen that the Insurance Company by producing the documentary evidence proved to the core that blank cover note of the policy in question was lost. When the Insurance company takes specific defence about non- issuance of insurance policy, then the burden lies on the owner of vehicle to prove that offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 Insurance Company. However, perusal of the record would show that appellant No.1, owner of offending vehicle, had not discharged his burden of proof by leading any documentary evidence to support that insurance policy was a genuine one. Appellant No.1 who actively contested the claim case, has not come forward and placed on record any material like receipt of payment of premium of insurance nor examined agent of the insurance company to say that the policy in the name of appellant No.1 was taken by appellant No.1 through him/her and that the appellant No.1 had paid the premium. 13. In view of the above, it is apparent that respondent No.3 had been able to establish before the Claims Tribunal by leading documentary evidence that cover note which follows the policy in question has been lost much prior to the date of issuance of policy and the policy with regard to the offending vehicle that was produced before the Claims Tribunal, is not genuine. This being the position, in the considered opinion of 8 this Court, the Claims Tribunal justified in fastening liability upon the driver and owner of the vehicle and exonerating the Insurance Company. 14. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, this appeal has no substance, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/ SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI