1 2025:CGHC:54483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 273 of 2017 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office Raipur, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer Of Offending Truck No. M.H.27/ X/4377, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Bharat Lal Gujratia S/o Bulkhu Gujratia, aged about 45 years, R/o Shakti Ward Bhatapara Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimant, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Deepak Gochide S/o Devidas Gochide, aged about 45 years, R/o Mayanagar, Behind Gopar Nagar, Amravti, Thana and Tehsil Rajapeth District Rajapeth Maharashtra ...............Registered Owner And Driver Of Offending Truck No. M.H. 27/ X/4377, Maharashtra ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 22.10.2016 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara (C.G.) in Claim Case No.1/2015 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,63,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 realization, in favour of the claimants and against the Insurance Company. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on 12.05.2014, deceased Raju @ Sharma Kachhuwa along with his two friends Bharatlal Gujratiya and Satish Dagor was returning from Bemetara to Bhatapara on his motorcycle after giving invitation of Chhatthi Ceremony. At about 8-9 p.m., when they were passing through village Bamhnidih on Nandghat Bhatapara main road, respondent no.6 Deepak driving the offending Truck bearing registration No. MH 27 X 4377 rashly and negligently drove the offending vehicle and dashed the motorcycle of Raju, as a result of which, Raju suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants of the deceased preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.10,81,000/-. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,63,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss. 3. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal held the driver/owner and Insurance Company jointly or severally liable and fastened the primary liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance company, against which, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company for exoneration from liability. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance 3 Company that, on the date of the accident, the vehicle in question was being operated without a valid fitness certificate, and therefore, there was a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for the payment of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that, in an identical claim petition, MAC No. 1070/2016, decided on 03.10.2024 and arising out of the same accident, this High Court has exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle was being plied without a valid fitness certificate. 5. There is no representation made on behalf of the respondents. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 7. Learned Tribunal of its award has held that the Fitness Certificate (NA-2) of the vehicle in question presented in the case was effective from 02.06.2014 to 01.06.2015 whereas the accident took place on 12.05.2014. Though the Tribunal has held that on the date of accident there was no fitness of the offending vehicle yet it has not accepted the breach of policy conditions. 8. This issue has been considered by the five judges Bench of Kerala High Court in case of Pareed Pillai vs. Oriental Insurance Company Co. Ltd reported in AIR 2019 Kerala 9 and held thus :- “17. The stipulations under the above provisions clearly substantiate the importance and necessity to have a valid Fitness Certificate to the transport vehicle at all times. The above prescription converges on the point that Certificate of 4 Registration, existence of valid Permit and availability of Fitness Certificate, all throughout, are closely interlinked in the case of a transport vehicle and one requirement cannot be segregated from the other. The transport vehicle should be completely fit and road worthy, to be plied on the road, which otherwise may cause threat to the lives and limbs of passengers and the general public, apart from damage to property. Only if the transport vehicle is having valid Fitness Certificate, would the necessary Permit be issued in terms of Section 66 of the Act and by virtue of the mandate under Section 56 of the Act, no transport vehicle without Fitness Certificate will be deemed as a validly registered vehicle for the purpose of Section 39 of the Act, which stipulates that nobody shall drive or cause the motor vehicle to be driven without valid registration in public place or such other place, as the case may be. These requirements are quite 'fundamental' in nature; unlike a case where a transport vehicle carrying more passengers than the permitted capacity or a goods carriage carrying excess quantity of goods than the permitted extent or a case where a transport vehicle was plying through a deviated route than the one shown in the route permit which instances could rather be branded as 'technical violations'. In other words, when a transport vehicle is not having a Fitness Certificate, it will be deemed as having no Certificate of Registration and when such vehicle is not having Permit or Fitness Certificate, nobody can drive such vehicle and no owner can permit the use of any such vehicle compromising with the lives, limbs, properties of the passengers/general public. Obviously, since the safety of passengers and general public was of serious concern and consideration for the law makers, appropriate and adequate measures were taken by incorporating relevant provisions in the Statute, also 5 pointing out the circumstances which would constitute offence; providing adequate penalty. This being the position, such lapse, if any, can only be regarded as a fundamental breach and not a technical breach and any interpretation to the contrary, will only negate the intention of the law makers.” 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the aforementioned judgment, it is evident from the evidence brought on record that the accident occurred on 12.05.2014 whereas the fitness (N.A.-2) of the offending vehicle was effective from 02.06.2014 to 01.06.2015 i.e. the fitness certificate was issued after the date of accident. As such, on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being operated without fitness. Hence, there was a clear breach of policy condition and in such situation, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. 10. However, considering the fact that, though at the time of the accident the offending vehicle did not possess a valid fitness certificate, it was nevertheless duly insured with the Insurance Company, and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh and Another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2018) 7 SCC 558, as well as the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in MAC No 1070 of 2016, arising out of the same accident, wherein the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation amount at the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle, this Court deems it appropriate to adopt a similar course. 6 Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company at the time of the accident, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall first satisfy the award by paying the amount of compensation to the claimants shall thereafter be entitled to recover the same from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, this appeal of the Insurance Company is partly allowed. 12. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Certified Copy as per rules. No order as to costs. Sd/- Ssd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U. K. Raju