1 2025:CGHC:17264 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 308 of 2018 1. The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch-Office, Old Bus Stand Road, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.3). ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Bhawna Jha Wd/o Late Shambhunath Jha, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Shanti Nagar Lane No.1 Chikhali, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 2. Chandranath Jah S/o Late Shambhunath Jha, Aged About 21 Years, Occupation Student, R/o Shanti Nagar Lane No.1 Chikhali, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 3. Awdhesh Jha S/o Late Shambhunath Jha, Aged About 19 Years, Occupation Student, R/o Shanti Nagar Lane No.1 Chikhali, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 4. Smt. Shail Jha Wd/o Late Ramanand Jha, Aged About 65 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Lane No.1 Chikhali, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 5. K. Rajendran S/o Kalikoadar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 19 Pituvalvnandu Molai, P.S. Sendamaglam, District Namakel (Tamilnadu) (Driver). 6. K.S. Raja S/o K. Sobapathi, R/o Mukam P.O. Maneshar Gudgaon, Haryana, 122001 (Owner). ... Respondents SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.04.16 17:27:51 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 3 : Mr. Satyendra Shrivas, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 15 / 04 /20 25 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2018 which is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code for taking additional documents/evidence on record. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits the Investigator’s report dated 15.12.2012, reveals that the permit copy was fake and not valid on the date of accident i.e., 22.03.2011. He next submits that during verification, the concerned Clerk verbally stated that the permit copy was fake but refused to provide a written statement. Furthermore, the permit status which was printed out online shows the actual validity of permit that is from 10.02.2012 to 13.02.2013, which is contradictory to the permit copy claimed by driver/owner of the offending vehicle. 3. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3 that arising out of the same accident one more claim application has been filed before the learned Tribunal, in which the appellant insurance company has entered into compromise with the claimants therein in Lok Adalat vide order dated 12.12.2015. 3 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, taking note that the said accident had occurred on 22.03.2011 and the award was passed on 03.10.2017 after giving sufficient opportunities to the parties, the report of the investigator dated 15.12.2012 produced before this Court on 16.01.2018, and the permit particulars is printed out online which shows different validity of permit, but the same has not been authorized by the RTO and if the report of the investigator dated 15.12.2012 was available with the appellant then why it was not presented and proved before the Tribunal until the award dated 03.10.2017 i.e., about five years. The appellant has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this delay. By considering all these circumstances, I am not inclined to allow this application. 6. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 01/2018 is rejected. 7. This appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 03.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Rajnandgaon, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 08/2012 (“Smt. Bhawna Jha & Others vs. K. Rajendran & Others”). 8. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.03.2011, Shambhunath Jha (now deceased) being a member of Udandasta party had gone to inspect the examination centers in Dogargarh, Chauki Mohla, Manpur along with a flying squad team from 4 Rajnandgaon by vehicle Tavera hired by the State Government. While returning after inspection, near Village Dhowedanda in Mohla block on Mohllla-Rajnandgaon Road, the respondent No. 5 drove the truck bearing registration No. HR-55E7436 rashly and negligently, came from the opposite direction and hit the vehicle Tavera. As a result of which, all occupants of the Tavera vehicle sustained grievous injuries and Shambhunath Jha died on the spot due to injury sustained by him. His legal heirs, who are respondents No. 1 to 4, filed a claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the driver (K. Rajendran) of the offending vehicle, registered owner (K.S. Raja) and the appellant (insurance company) on which after due proceedings, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 41,85,825/- in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased. The appellant was found to be the insurer of the offending vehicle and was held liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount. 9. The appellant/insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the award passed against it. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the offending vehicle was being driven without valid and effective permit. He next submits that the learned Tribunal with regard to permit by due to bonafide mistake, evidence could not be led by the Assurance Company and after verification of the copy of permit through its Investigator’s report dated 15.12.2012, it was found that copy of permit is fake and not valid and effective on the date of accident 22.03.2011. The learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal and prays for exoneration of the liability of payment of 5 compensation. 10. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 supported the impugned award and opposed the contention of the appellant and submits that there has been no violation of the insurance policy conditions, therefore the argument of the insurance company is not acceptable and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 12. In the case in hand, the Insurance company has failed to present any evidence regarding breach of policy and during the police investigation, documents related to the vehicle such as fitness certificate, permit and driving license were seized whereas the appellant/insurance company has neither conducted any investigation nor produced any documents to show the breach of policy conditions. Therefore, it has not been proved that respondent No. 5 did not have a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and it was also not proved that the truck was being driven in violation of the terms of the insurance policy. As such, there is no illegality or error in the judgment passed by the Tribunal. Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award in question. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 6 14. The record of the tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.