1 (MAC No. 1917 of 2023) 2025:CGHC:47253 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1917 of 2023 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Floor Shanti Chhabi Tower Sirasar Chowk, Power House Road, Behind Allahabad Bank, Jagdalpur, C.G. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ramadhar Verma S/o Late Shivdean Verma Aged About 73 Years Caste- Kachhi, R/o Vill.- Govindpur, P.S. And Tah.- Kanker, Distt. North Bastar Kanker, C G 2 - Kunal Tekam S/o Nipendra Tekam Aged About 25 Years Caste- Gond, R/o Mahurband Para Kjanker, Tah And Distt. Kanker C G (Driver) 3 - Aditya Vatti S/o Veer Singh Vatti Aged About 28 Years Caste- Gond, R/o Ekta Nagar Thelkabod, P.S. And Tah.- Kanker, Distt. North Bastar Kanker, C G (Owner) --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant :- Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.3 :- Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 15.09.2025 1. The appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.09.16 17:20:50 +0530 2 (MAC No. 1917 of 2023) (for short “Act of 1988”) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, by which the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs.7,94,000/- along with 9% per annum interest rate from the date of claim application has been fastened upon the insurance company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the insurance company despite the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holder of valid and effective driving license on the date of incident as the driver was prosecuted for offence under Section 3/181 & 5/180 of the Act of 1988 and therefore, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have recorded a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license on the date of incident. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ owner of the vehicle would support the impugned award. 3 (MAC No. 1917 of 2023) 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the material available on records with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, the insurance company has taken a plea that the driver of offending vehicle/respondent No.2 did not have a valid and effective driving license for driving the offending vehicle and in this regard has examined Jaswant Kumar Avsuri (NAW-01), Senior Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Branch Officer, Jagdalpur, who has only stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was prosecuted for offence under Section 3/181 of the Act of 1988 and therefore, it ought to have been held that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of incident. However, learned Claims Tribunal has categorically held that the insurance company has failed to produce any document to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holder of a valid and effective driving license and merely because of the fact that the driver was prosecuted for not having effective driving license, it cannot be inferred in a claim case that the driver did not have a valid and effective driving license to 4 (MAC No. 1917 of 2023) drive the offending vehicle. As such, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that there was no breach in terms and conditions of the insurance policy is a correct finding of facts based on the materials available on record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the insurance company. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain the instant appeal. 6. Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!