1 2025:CGHC:57590 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 596 of 2018 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Bramh Road, Near Kumkum Hotel, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.3), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Kunjbihari Soni S/o Baijnath Soni Aged About 65 Years Caste Sonar, R/o Village Jhingo, P.S. And Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.1), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Chandrawati Devi W/o Kunjbihari Soni Aged About 60 Years Caste Sonar, R/o Village Jhingo, P.S. And Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.2), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vakil Khan S/o Shahabuddin Khan Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Bhadar, P.S. And Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.1), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Prakash Chand Rai S/o Late Gaya Rai Aged About 48 Years R/o Navapara, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.2), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 3 : None. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 26/11/2025 1. This is the Insurer’s appeal against the award dated 23.1.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 93/2016 whereby an amount of Rs. 40,20,852/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 29.12.2015 at about 6:50 p.m., Vishnu had gone to Ambikapur on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-15-CF-3552 and, while returning, collided with a Highwa Truck bearing Registration No. CG-15-AC-0871, which was negligently parked in the middle of the road, resulting in severe injuries to Vishnu, who later succumbed to them; his parents thereafter filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- from respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the appellant. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal. The appellant Insurance Company, in its written statement, denied the allegations of the claim petition, contending that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident by rashly and negligently riding the motorcycle and hitting the 3 stationary truck, and further asserted that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were necessary parties; accordingly, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the claim. Based on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues and, after due inquiry, awarded a total sum of Rs. 40,20,852/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till realization in favour of respondent No. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the liability fastened upon the insurance company is wholly unsustainable in law, as the offending vehicle was being operated in clear violation of the mandatory policy conditions. He further argues that, on the date of the accident, the vehicle neither possessed a valid fitness certificate nor the requisite permit, thereby constituting a fundamental breach that ought to absolve the insurance company from any liability to pay compensation. In addition, he submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to properly consider the age of the deceased as reflected in the employee certificate, which has resulted in an erroneous assessment of compensation. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in MAC No. 1289/2014 and other connect matters on 19.11.2020. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the Tribunal has rightly fastened liability upon the insurance company, and in paragraph 14 of the impugned award, the Tribunal has duly examined this issue and passed a well- reasoned order, categorically holding that the mere absence of 4 fitness cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for the insurance company to evade its statutory liability. He further contends that, with regard to the dispute concerning the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has correctly relied upon the High School Certificate, which reflects the age of the deceased as 29 years, and therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal warrants no interference. 5. None for respondents No. 1 to 3. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a thorough perusal of the entire record, coupled with the evidence adduced by both parties, it stands conclusively established that the absence of fitness or permit of the offending vehicle has no causal nexus with the occurrence of the accident, a principle which has been aptly affirmed by the High Court of Kerala in V.M. Augustine Vattakavumkal vs. Ayyappan Kutty @ Mani and Another, AIR 2015 Kerala 131. The Tribunal, having meticulously examined this legal and factual position, has rightly held that such technical deficiencies cannot absolve the insurance company of its statutory liability, and accordingly fastened the liability upon the insurer. The reasoning assigned by the Tribunal being well-founded and legally sound, the order warrants no interference. 8. In so far as the question of age is concerned, it is well settled that the high school certificate constitutes the primary and most reliable document for determining the age of an individual, and the 5 courts have consistently accorded it paramount evidentiary value for such purposes; therefore, the Tribunal’s reliance upon the high school certificate for ascertaining the age of the deceased is fully justified, legally sound, and cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity or irregularity. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat