1 2025:CGHC:60657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1972 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Bhilai, 1st Floor, Shivnath Complex, G.E. Road, Supela Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ---(Insurer Of Metador No. C.G. 04/j-9600), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh .. Applicant versus 1 - Radhelal @ Radelal Sahu S/o Ghanaram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Semo, Tahsil Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 - Sati Bai W/o Radhelal Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Semo, Tahsil Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. -----(Claimants), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Sudhir Bagde S/o Bitthal Rao Bagde Aged About 49 Years R/o House Of Shivlal, Street No.27, Sunder Nagar, Kohka, Police Station Supela Bhilai, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ----(Driver Of Metador No. C.G. - 04/j-9600), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Archana Singh W/o Pradeep Singh (Nearby Shyamnagar Gurudwara, Raipur), Presently Residing At Qtr. No. 06/f Street No.66, VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Sector - 6, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ---(Owner Of Metador No. C.G. - 04/j-9600), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mr. Anil Bhoi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 :- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 12.12.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the award dated 31.08.2018 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Claims Case No. 27/2017, awarding total compensation of Rs.7,10,400/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization while fastening liability on the non- applicant Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 2. As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 23.07.2016 the deceased Mukesh Kumar was travelling along with his friend Hari on a motorcycle from Village Saja to Raipur at about 12:00 noon. When they reached near Kumhari, the driver of the offending vehicle (Matador), driving in a rash and negligent manner, dashed into their motorcycle. As a result, both of them sustained multiple injuries and were taken to a hospital at Durg, where Mukesh Kumar ultimately succumbed to the injuries. The offending vehicle was being driven by 3 Non-Applicant No. 1, was owned by Non-Applicant No. 2, and was insured with Non-Applicant No. 3 (the Insurance Company) on the date of the accident. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.7,10,400/- under various heads, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the learned MACT is bad in law and contrary to the evidence on record, as the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate that the Appellant had duly proved through the testimony of Indranarayan Mishra, Senior Assistant, Oriental Insurance Company, that the offending vehicle was being plied by non-applicants No. 3 and 4 without a valid permit on the date of the incident. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in relying solely on the police investigation which did not register an offence under Section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act while completely ignoring the fact that non-applicants No. 3 and 4 never produced the permit before the Tribunal, warranting an adverse inference against them. Learned counsel further submits that the present case is one of head-on collision, and as per the nazri map, the accident occurred in the middle of the road; moreover, the deceased Mukesh Kumar did not possess a driving licence, which clearly establishes contributory negligence, and at least 50% deduction ought to have been made from the compensation. It is further argued that 4 fastening full liability upon the Appellant is erroneous, as even assuming liability towards a third party, the Tribunal ought to have passed an order of “pay and recover.” Hence, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents support the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal, after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the award, which needs no interference by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Though learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company has raised the ground that there was a breach of policy conditions as the vehicle was being plied without the necessary permit, the Tribunal has dealt with this aspect in detail in para 14 of the impugned award. The Tribunal has held that the Insurance Company failed to adduce any cogent evidence to establish that, on the date and time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. Accordingly, the alleged breach of the insurance policy remained unproved, and the Insurance Company was rightly held liable to satisfy the award. 8. Upon perusal of the record and the evidence available, it appears that the Tribunal has not committed any error of law in arriving at the finding that the vehicle was not being plied in violation of the policy 5 conditions. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out, and the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha