1 2025:CGHC:53982 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1496 of 2018 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Plot No. 2/7 2nd Floor Near Gandhi Chowk G.E. Road, Akash Ganga, Supela Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh, Through Its Manager Legal Shivmohan Bhawan Vidhansabha Marg Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.....(Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Parwati Devi W/o Late Sarya Kumar Sharma Aged About 37 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Ward No. 10 Kumhari, P.S. Kumhari Tehsil Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rishit Raj Sharma S/o Sarya Kumar Sharma Aged About 13 Years Minor They Are Through Their Mother Smt. Parwati Sharma, R/o Shankar Nagar, Ward No. 10 Kumhari, P.S. Kumhari Tehsil Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Sanyukta Sharma D/o Saryu Kumar Sharma Aged About 17 Years Minor They Are Through Their Mother Smt. Parwati Sharma, R/o Shankar Nagar, Ward No. 10 Kumhari, P.S. Kumhari Tehsil Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Shweta Sharma D/o Saryu Kumar Sharma Aged About 8 Years Minor They Are Through Their Mother Smt. Parwati Sharma, R/o Shankar Nagar, Ward No. 10 Kumhari, P.S. Kumhari Tehsil Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Dakha Devi Sharma W/o Kuldeep Sharma Aged About 72 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Ward No. 10 Kumhari, P.S. Kumhari Tehsil Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.....(Claimants), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ramiqbal Yadav S/o Chhapittar Yadav R/o C/o Heavy Transport Company 48/a Transport Nagar Hathkhoj Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.....(Driver), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Kulwant Kour W/o Aged About 55 Years R/o Near Durga Temple, Ward No. 07 Kohka, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.....(Owner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 For Appellant : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 3 : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 04/11/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 17.04.2018 passed by the learned Ist Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, in Claim Case No. 102/2015. 2. The averment in this appeal, in brief, is that the present case arises out of a fatal road accident that led to the unfortunate death of one Saryu Kumar Sharma, and the subsequent claim for compensation filed by his legal heirs and dependents under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein (the claimants before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) instituted an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking just and adequate compensation for the untimely death of the deceased. The claim petition was directed against the driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle, which was alleged to have caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving. According to the claimants, on 18.03.2015, the deceased Saryu Kumar Sharma, along with his friend Netram, was travelling from Raipur to Bhilai on a motorcycle bearing registration number CG-07-LU-7188. The deceased was driving the motorcycle in a careful and lawful manner, adhering to 3 all traffic regulations. However, when they reached near the Railnagar intersection at G.E. Road, Charoda, a heavy goods truck bearing registration number CG-07-C-4672 approached from behind at a high speed. The said truck, being driven in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic safety norms, violently collided with the motorcycle. The forceful impact threw the deceased and his companion onto the road, causing grievous and multiple injuries to the deceased. He was immediately shifted to a nearby hospital for medical treatment, but despite all efforts made by the attending doctors, he succumbed to his injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, submitted that the deceased was at the prime of his life, energetic, and healthy, and was working as an LIC Agent, earning approximately Rs. 5,00,000/- per month. It was further asserted that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and his sudden demise had caused irreparable loss, both financially and emotionally, to his dependents. On this basis, the claimants sought a total compensation of Rs. 1,06,00,000/- under various heads such as loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and mental agony, among others. 3. Upon service of notice, Non-applicant No. 1 (the driver of the offending vehicle) did not appear before the Tribunal despite due service and was, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. Non-applicant No. 2 (the owner of the offending vehicle), however, entered appearance and filed a written statement denying all the material allegations of the claim petition. The owner contended that the vehicle was duly insured with the present appellant Insurance Company at the time of the accident, and that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence. The 4 owner further asserted that in the event of any liability being established, the same ought to be indemnified by the insurer. However, it is pertinent to note that Non-applicant No. 2 did not step into the witness box to substantiate her defence or to prove that she had taken reasonable care and caution while employing the driver. 4. The Appellant Insurance Company, on its part, filed a detailed written statement, vehemently contesting the claim and denying all allegations of liability. The insurer specifically pleaded that, at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending truck, namely Ramiqbal Yadav, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, and that the owner of the vehicle had deliberately entrusted the vehicle to him despite knowing that he was not authorized to drive. It was thus argued that the owner had committed a willful breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, thereby absolving the insurance company from any liability to indemnify the insured. The insurer further submitted that upon verification, it was discovered that the driving licence bearing number R/19609/HR/2009, purportedly issued by the RTO, Hissar (Haryana), was fake and not issued by the said licensing authority. To substantiate this contention, the appellant Insurance Company produced before the Tribunal the licence verification report obtained from the RTO, Hissar, after paying the requisite official fee through its investigator. The said report, which was filed and marked as Exhibit D-2, categorically confirmed that Driving Licence No. R/19609/HR/2009 had never been issued by the RTO, Hissar, thereby establishing that the driver was not holding a valid licence at the time of the accident. The officer of the Insurance Company who had procured the verification report duly 5 appeared before the Tribunal and produced the documents obtained from the public authority, which are public records admissible under the law. It was further submitted that the appellant Insurance Company had taken all necessary steps to prove its defence by ensuring the presence of an official from the RTO, Hissar, along with the relevant records. For this purpose, the appellant duly deposited the process fee and prayed that summons be issued to the concerned RTO official. However, despite issuance of summons, the witness from RTO, Hissar, failed to appear before the Tribunal, and the summons were neither returned served nor unserved. In these circumstances, the appellant filed an application under the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules seeking that the Tribunal call for a report directly from the RTO, Hissar, and also filed a further application for examination of the RTO official on commission, so as to prove the authenticity of the verification report and to establish the falsity of the licence. However, the learned Tribunal, by its order dated 22.03.2018, rejected the application for issuance of commission and consequently closed the opportunity of the appellant to lead further evidence in that regard. Despite the diligent efforts made by appellant to establish that the driving licence was fake and that the vehicle had been entrusted to an unauthorized person in conscious violation of policy terms, the Tribunal refused to accept the verification report on the ground that no official from the RTO, Hissar, had been examined. The Tribunal, while passing its award, failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of Exhibit D-2, which was a public document issued by a competent authority after payment of statutory fees and obtained in due process. The Tribunal also ignored the fact 6 that the Insurance Company had made every possible attempt to secure the attendance of the RTO official but was prevented from doing so due to the own rejection of Tribunal of the request for commission. Further, the Tribunal overlooked the material fact that the owner of the vehicle had not adduced any evidence to show that she had verified the credentials and competence of the driver before entrusting him with the vehicle. No evidence was led to prove that she had acted with reasonable care or due diligence. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal, without properly appreciating the facts, evidence, and legal principles involved, erroneously fastened liability upon the appellant Insurance Company to satisfy the compensation award. The finding of Tribunal, holding that the Insurance Company had failed to establish that the licence was fake, was perverse and contrary to the record, as the verification report clearly demonstrated otherwise. Aggrieved by such findings and the consequent fastening of liability, the appellant Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal, challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is bad both on facts and on law. The Tribunal, in arriving at its findings, has committed serious errors in appreciating the material evidence, legal provisions, and the obligations of the parties under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant, therefore, seeks appropriate intervention from this Court to rectify the manifest injustice caused by the impugned order. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed grave illegality in rejecting the application filed by appellant for issuance of commission 7 to examine the official from RTO, Hissar. This examination was sought solely to establish that the driving licence bearing number R/19609/HR/2009 was never issued by the licensing authority. Despite the diligent efforts made by appellant to secure attendance of the RTO official and payment of requisite process fees, the Tribunal arbitrarily refused to allow the examination. The Tribunal then erroneously recorded that the appellant had failed to prove that the driving licence was not issued, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of Exhibit D-2, which is the verification report obtained from the RTO, Hissar. The said document, being issued by a public authority in the ordinary discharge of its official functions, clearly falls within the definition of “public documents” under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and is therefore fully admissible as evidence. The failure on the part of Tribunal to consider the probative value of such a document is wholly unjustified and contrary to settled legal principles. The learned Tribunal further erred in holding that Exhibit D-2 was not in the format prescribed under Form 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and treating this as a defect in the verification. It is submitted that Form 54 is intended only for sending information by the police to the Tribunal and is not applicable to verification reports issued by RTO authorities. The reliance placed by Tribunal on this technicality is therefore wholly misplaced and perverse in law. It is submitted that the Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that, in the written statement, the owner of the vehicle did not plead that she had personally verified the driving licence of the driver before employing him or that she had satisfied herself 8 regarding the authenticity of the licence. On the other hand, the facts clearly indicate that the owner handed over the vehicle to an unlicensed driver, thereby committing a willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The appellant has, therefore, established prima facie that there was deliberate contravention of policy terms, which the Tribunal has ignored. The Tribunal has further failed to appreciate the clear mandate of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which stipulates that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in a public place unless he holds an effective driving licence authorizing him to drive that vehicle. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in the present case, it is admitted that the driver did not hold a valid licence, nor was he authorized by any competent licensing authority to operate a motor vehicle. This fundamental statutory violation was ignored by the learned Tribunal in holding the appellant liable. The Tribunal also overlooked the statutory duty imposed on the owner of the vehicle under Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 5 obligates the owner to ensure that no person who does not satisfy the requirements of Section 3 is allowed to drive the vehicle. In the present case, the owner failed to verify the driver’s licence with the issuing authority, thereby contravening her statutory duty. This failure directly resulted in the breach of policy conditions and the ensuing accident. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to: set aside the impugned award/order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No. 102/15 (C.G.), absolve the appellant from liability to pay the 9 compensation awarded by the Tribunal; or, in the alternative, modify the award/compensation in accordance with law and equity. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 3 would submit that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is just, proper, and in accordance with law. There is no error or illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal, and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal acted well within its discretion in rejecting the application for issuance of commission. The appellant had ample opportunity to adduce evidence, but failed to ensure the attendance of the RTO official. The appellant cannot be allowed to shift blame to the Tribunal for its own inability to produce evidence. It is submitted that Exhibit D-2, though a public document, does not by itself prove that the licence was not issued. The Tribunal correctly held that the appellant did not substantiate its claim through proper evidence, as required under law. Reliance on a verification report alone, without examination of the issuing authority, is insufficient. The owner of the vehicle had exercised due care and diligence in engaging the driver, and there is no evidence of willful breach of the insurance policy. The Tribunal rightly applied the principles of strict liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, holding the insurer liable for third-party compensation, which cannot be avoided by disputing the driver’s licence. The primary obligation to compensate third-party victims under the Motor Vehicles Act rests on the insurer, irrespective of the driver’s licence status. The Tribunal rightly applied settled law that the insurer is liable to satisfy the award first, and may later seek recovery from the insured, in line with Supreme Court precedents. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is 10 prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed and the impugned award be upheld in its entirety, with costs. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 9. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant insurance company challenging the Award dated 17.04.2018 passed by the learned Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, in Claim Case No. 102/2015. The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred both in law and on facts in holding it liable to pay compensation to the claimants for the death of Saryu Kumar Sharma, who allegedly died in a road accident on 18.03.2015 involving the offending vehicle bearing registration number CG-07-C- 4672. 10. The learned Tribunal, in its impugned Award, held that the appellant insurance company failed to establish that the driving licence of the offending driver of the vehicle was fake. The Tribunal observed that Exhibit D-2, though obtained from the RTO, could not, in the absence of testimony from the issuing authority, conclusively establish that the driver was unlicensed. Further, the Tribunal noted that the report was not in the format prescribed under Form 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, and based on this technical objection, questioned the evidentiary value of Exhibit D-2. On the issue of liability, the Tribunal applied the principle of strict liability under the Motor Vehicles Act and held the insurance company liable to satisfy the claim of the respondents. 11. Upon careful examination of the record, it is evident that the appellant 11 insurance company raised a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was operating with a fake driving licence. However, the appellant did not produce any direct evidence from the licensing authority to establish this fact before the Tribunal. Exhibit D-2, while a public document obtained in due course, cannot, in isolation, conclusively prove the non-issuance of the licence, especially when the statutory officer who issued the report was not examined. The burden of proof lay on the appellant to establish the invalidity of the licence, and this burden was not discharged. 12. While the appellant contends that it was prevented from adducing crucial evidence, it is noted that the Tribunal exercised its discretion within the framework of procedural law. The appellant cannot shift the responsibility of securing the evidence onto the Tribunal, especially when it failed to ensure attendance of the official through other lawful means. It is acknowledged that Exhibit D-2 qualifies as a public document under Sections 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, admissibility alone does not equate to proof. A document may be admissible, but its evidentiary value depends on whether it is corroborated by oral testimony or other supporting evidence. In the present case, the Tribunal rightly held that Exhibit D-2, without oral evidence, was insufficient to prove that the licence was fake. 13. The observation of Tribunal regarding Form 54, while technically noted, does not materially affect the outcome, as the issue is whether the licence was fake. The contention of learned counsel for appellant that Form 54 is inapplicable is correct in principle, but the finding of Tribunal does not turn on this alone. Sections 3 and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act 12 are designed to regulate lawful driving and impose duties on owners. While these provisions place a statutory duty on the owner to ensure only licensed drivers operate the vehicle, the primary liability to compensate third-party victims rests with the insurer under Section 147 and Section 149 of the Act. In this regard, the Tribunal correctly applied settled legal principles in upholding the insurer’s liability to satisfy the claim. 14. In light of the above discussions, it is evident that although the appellant raised a plea regarding the driver holding a fake licence, it failed to prove this critical fact before the Tribunal. The verification report, without examination of the issuing authority, was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof. The Tribunal rightly observed that the appellant had not established the non-issuance of the driving licence. Further, the Tribunal correctly applied the principles of strict liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, holding the insurer liable to satisfy the compensation awarded to the claimants. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the Award dated 17.04.2018 passed by the learned Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, in Claim Case No. 102/2015 is upheld in its entirety. The appellant insurance company is directed to comply with the Award. No costs are imposed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna