1 2025:CGHC:34196 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2314 of 2024 1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And Distict- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Insurance Company of Car No. C.G.-04-L.X-3500) ... Appellant versus 1. Mitesh Changa (Minor) S/o Mukesh Changa Aged About 15 Years Through Legal Guardian Mukesh Changa S/o Surendra Changa, Aged About 44 Years, R/o House No. A-202, Harshit Jewelers, Bhagat Singh Ward No. 13, Hirapur Road, Tatibandh, Thana Amanaka, Distt. Raipur (CG)(Claimant) 2. Shivbagas Alias Vikas Sahu S/o Radheshyam Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 179, Ward No. 33, Village, Sarora, Thana- Urla, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of Car No. C.G.-04-L.X-3500) 3. Smt. Payal Agrawal W/o Ramnaresh Agrawal Aged About 37 Years R/o Harshit Vihar, In Front Of Upadhyay Hospital, Hirapur, Thana- Kabir Nagar, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Owner Of Car No. C.G.-04-L.X-3500) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. A.L. Singraul, Advocate For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 Mr. Lukesh Kumar Sahu, Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 18/7/2025 1. Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the award dated 4.9.2024 passed by the learned 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.1008/2023. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 11.8.2019, claimant was travelling in a car and going to KPS School from Hirapur to play. At about 8:30 a.m. when he reached near Sarona Over- bridge, a car bearing registration mark CG04-LX-3500, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (non-applicant No.1), dashed the said car and caused accident. In the said accident, claimant sustained multiple grievous injures which resulted into 80% permanent disability. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.1,72,50,000/- with interest was filed by claimant on the ground that at the time of accident, claimant was 15 years old bright student, due to injuries sustained by him in the said accident, his left leg above knee was amputated as a result he became permanently disabled. 3. Non-applicant No.1, driver and owner of offending vehicle, filed their joint reply denying the averments made in claim application. It was specifically denied that injured was playing 3 on road and on being pushed by his friends, he came in front of the offending vehicle and accident occurred. Accident was not the outcome of negligent act on the part of non-applicant No.1. At the time of accident vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3, non-applicant No.1 was possessed with valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was not plied on road in violation of any of the conditions of insurance policy and therefore, insurance company is liable to pay amount of compensation, if any, awarded to claimant. 4. Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply pleading that on the date of accident, it was the injured who was driving the car and not the insured. On the date of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, it was insured for private use but at the time of accident it was being used for some other purpose. Hence, non-applicant No.2 is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. The Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence and documents brought on record by respective parties, arrived at a conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of driver of offending vehicle causing grievous injuries to claimant, there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy and accordingly, allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.40,07,198/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. and fastened liability upon non-applicants, 4 jointly and severally, to satisfy the impugned award. 6. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company submits that this appeal is filed mainly on the ground that the Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon insurance company overlooking the fact that at the time of accident, car was being driven by minor injured, which amounts to violation of essential condition of insurance policy. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents would submit that police registered criminal case against non-applicant No.1-driver of offending vehicle, finding him to be involved in accident. Insurance company has not led any admissible evidence to prove that at the time of accident, car was being driven by minor injured. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned award and documents available in record of the Claims Tribunal. 9. In the FIR (Ex.P-2) available in record of claim case reveals that the name of driver is not specifically mentioned and it only mentions that driver of offending vehicle while driving rashly and negligently caused the accident. After completion of investigation, final report is filed against non-applicant No.1 Shivbhagat Sahu. Though appellant insurance company in its reply has taken plea that the car was driven by Piyush Agrawal, who was not having valid and effective driving 5 license. To prove the said pleading made in reply, Insurance Company examined Atul Sharan as NAW-1 who is Law Officer of the Insurance Company. This witness has admitted that along with investigation report, copy of statement of witnesses recorded by police has not been filed. 10.Appellant insurance company has also examined Dr. Sugandha Dhenge (NAW-2) to prove audio recording in CD. This witness is not an eyewitness to the accident, therefore, her evidence cannot be accepted to appreciate the ground as raised by learned counsel for appellant in this appeal. Audio recording of CD and the evidence of expert is also not admissible in view of the facts of the case where even in the FIR name of driver is not mentioned but only mentions ‘driver of offending vehicle’. Evidence of expert is not conclusive proof to arrive at a conclusion that audio recording, if any available, could be of the same person. 11.For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-