1 2025:CGHC:52497 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1034 of 2019  The New India Insurance Company Limited Division Office, 1st Floor Tank Business Tower, Above Karnataka Bank, Near Fafadih Chowk, Station Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. -23-3231), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Reena Nirmalkar Wd/o Late Indaraman Nirmalkar Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Village Dabha, Post Chhoti, Kareli, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2. Prateek Nirmalkar S/o Late Indarman Nirmalkar Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Reena Nirmalkar R/o Ward No. 9, Village Dabha, Post Chhoti, Kareli, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3. Gagan Nirmalkar S/o Late Inadarman Nirmalkar Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Reena Nirmalkar R/o Ward No. 9, Village Dabha, Post Chhoti, Kareli, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Pushpa Nirmalkar Wd/o Late Heeralal Nirmalkar Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Village Dabha, Post Chhoti, Kareli, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 5. Mukteshwar Nagesh (Mali) S/o Manbodh Nagesh R/o Village Jhargaon, Police Station Devbhog, District Gariyaband 2 Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 23- 3231), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 6. Suraj Sarda S/o Late Satyanarayan Sarda R/o Devbhog, Police Station And Tahsil Devbhog, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 23- 3231), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 28-10-2025 1) By way of this appeal, appellant–Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 387/2018 dated 7.3.2019 whereby Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 19,24,720/- with interest @ 7.5% on account of death of death of Indarman Nirmalkar. 2) Facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 9.3.2018 at about 7:00 a.m., Indarman Nirmalkar was going from Gaurghat to Bodkel Tappa in truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JC-3835. When the truck reached Bajaghati Mod, the offending vehicle (truck) bearing registration No. CG-23-3231, being driven by respondent No. 5 herein in rash and negligent manner, dashed the truck. In the accident, Indarman Nirmalkar sustained grievous injuries and died 3 on the spot. 3) The claimants filed claim case claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,96,000/-. Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that on the date of accident, there was no valid permit in favor of offending vehicle. It was further pleaded that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license. Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence ; Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim application and fastened liability on the Insurance Company. 4) Ms Swati Agrawal, counsel appearing for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the offending vehicle was being plied in contravention to the Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as there was no permit to ply the said vehicle within the State of Chhattisgarh and requisite authorization fee was not paid. She further submits that there was breach of insurance policy, therefore Claims Tribunal committed an error of law while fastening the liability with the Insurance Company. She contends that Claims Tribunal has considered the age of deceased to be 35 years and applied multiplier of 16 whereas according to the Class- 8th marksheet [Ex.P-27], date of birth of the deceased was 8.3.1983, thus on the date of accident, the deceased was aged more than 35 years, therefore Claims Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 15. She prays to set aside the award impugned. 5) On the other hand, Mr. Nagdev, counsel appearing for the 4 respondent No. 1/ claimant submits that Claims Tribunal has passed the award impugned after considering oral as well as documentary evidence, thus there is no scope for interference. 6) Mr. Rastogi, counsel appearing for respondent No. 6/ owner of the offending vehicle submits that All India Permit was issued by the competent authority in favor of the offending vehicle to ply it throughout India including State of Chhattisgarh. He further submits that initially, authorization fee was paid and thereafter, there was no need to pay the said fee. He contends that there was no breach of the insurance policy and Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability with the Insurance Company. 7) Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the record. 8) Ms. Agrawal has argued that on the date of accident, authorization fee was not paid, therefore the vehicle was being plied in breach of insurance policy, particularly in absence of valid permit to ply the vehicle within the State of Chhattisgarh. Perusal of the All India Permit which is part of record would show that All India Permit issued in favor of the offending vehicle was effective from 12.1.2016 till 11.1.2021 meaning thereby on the date of accident, there was valid permit in existence. 9) The authorization fee was required to be paid only when the truck was moving out of the State of Chhattisgarh. As the vehicle was registered in the State of Chhattisgarh and accident took placed in 5 the State of Chhattisgarh itself, Insurance Company could not have taken the defense of valid permit. The permit was issued by the competent authority and there was no need to pay the authorization fee when the truck was being used in the State of Chhattisgarh as per the terms and conditions of the All India Permit. 10) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Binod Kumar Singh Versus National Insurance Company Ltd1. while dealing with the similar issue held as under :- 8. This Court has carefully gone through the permit which is on record and the National Permit is certainly valid up to 13.10.2017. The authorization fee was required to be paid only when the truck was moving out of State of Bihar as it was registered in the State of Bihar and the truck caught fire on account of short-circuit on 08.06.2014 in the State of Bihar itself and, therefore, the respondent company could not have repudiated the claim on such a frivolous ground. The permit in question was issued by the competent authority in Bihar and, therefore, there was no requirement of paying authorization fee when the truck was being used in the State of Bihar and as per the terms and conditions of the National Permit, authorization fee was required to be paid only when the truck was moving out of State of Bihar. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant was certainly entitled for the insurance claim as held by the State Commission and, therefore, the order passed by the National Commission, dated 19.08.2020, deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The respondent National Insurance Company is directed to process the claim of the appellant and to pay the amount to the appellant within a period of 60 1. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 171 6 days from today. It is needless to mention that the claim became due in the year 2014 and it was repudiated by the respondent-National Insurance Company in the year 2014 itself. The order of the State Commission allowing the claim was passed in the year 2017 which was reversed by the National Commission in the year 2020. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant was not only entitled for the entire claim amount right from the date it became due but he is also entitled for interest from the date of the complaint made before State Commission till the date, the amount is actually paid to him. The appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum and the same with the proposed amount be paid positively within 60 days from today. 11) With regard to age of the deceased, Claims Tribunal has considered the age of deceased 35 years and applied multiplier of 16. In the post-mortem report, age of the deceased is mentioned as 35 years and claimants have pleaded and deposed that on the date of accident, age of the deceased was 35 years. Class 8th mark-sheet was produced by the claimants wherein date of birth of the deceased is entered as 8.3.1983, thus on the date of accident i.e. 9.3.1983, age of the deceased was 35 years 0 months 1 days. In view of above, in my opinion, Claims Tribunal has not committed any error of law while assessing age of the deceased to be 35 years. Further, Insurance Company could not lead evidence to rebut the entries made in the post mortem report. 12) Insurance Company has moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC whereby a xerox copy of investigation report conducted by the Investigator of the Insurance Company has 7 been placed along with All India permit issued on 11.1.2016. These documents were within the knowledge and possession of the Insurance Company but it failed to produce these documents before the Claims Tribunal at appropriate stage. Furthermore, in the application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, Insurance Company has not assigned sufficient reasons for not filing these documents before Claims Tribunal. 13) Taking into consideration the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and reasons assigned in the application, I am not inclined to allow this application. Consequently, I.A. No. 5/2019 stands rejected. 14) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Shri Binod Kumar Singh (supra), no case is made out to interfere with the award impugned. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.10.29 17:30:05 +0530