1 2025:CGHC:50742 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1111 of 2017 1 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., T. P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh Represented Through The Officer In Charge, The The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Chameli Bai Wd/o Laxman Singh, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Jurali, At Presented R/o Jatga, P. S. Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 2 - Minor Kumari Aashu, D/o Late Laxman Singh, Aged About 8 Years R/o Village Jurali, At Presented R/o Jatga, P. S. Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 3 - Ramdas Mahant, S/o Jeevandas Mahant, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Mudapar, Near Petrol Pump, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 4 - Bhola Singh, S/o Gurudev Singh, R/o Ring Road No. 2, Tatibandh. Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 5 - Smt. Reshambai, Wd/o Chhattarpal Singh, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Jurali, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 --- Respondents MAC No. 1110 of 2017 1 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. T. P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh Represented Through The Officer-In-Charge, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1 - Prakash Kumar Sidar S/o Jaynandan Sidar, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Lamna, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh....Claimant 2 - Ramdas Mahant S/o Jeevandas, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Mudapar, Near Petrol Pump, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh....Driver. 3 - Bhola Singh S/o Gurudev Singh, R/o Ring Road No. 2, Tatibandh, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.....Owner. --- Respondents For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. Bennoon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate For Respective Respondents : None. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judgment on Board 10/10/2025 1. Since both the above-captioned appeals filed by the Insurance Company arise out of same accident that took place on 21.03.2009, they are being heard together and 3 disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As per averments made in the claim petitions, on 21.03.2009, the vehicle bearing registration No. CG04-JA-5180 (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle’) was engaged in carrying coal from village Chotia to Champa. At about 8:00– 9:00 p.m., when the offending vehicle reached near Tanakhar Mod, under the jurisdiction of Katghora Police Station, the driver/non-applicant No.1 drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed it with a Parsa tree, due to which, the offending vehicle turned turtle. In the said accident, Laxman Singh, who was travelling in the offending vehicle, was crushed under it and died on the spot, while injured-Prakash Kumar Sidar, the helper working on the offending vehicle, sustained grievous injuries including fracture of the right leg. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured with non-applicant No.3. 3. On account of injuries sustained by injured-Prakash Kumar (MAC No.1110/2017), he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.13,20,000/- inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, he was aged about 22 years and earning Rs.3,000/- per month by working as a Helper. However, the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba, C.G. in Claim Case No.60/2009 vide award dated 4 28.04.2017, assessed and awarded the compensation of Rs.58,899/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company/Appellant herein. 4. Similarly, on account of death of deceased- Laxman Singh (MAC No.1111/2017), a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the claimants seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.6,03,000/- along with inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 30 years and earning Rs.7,000/- per month by working as a Mason and also doing agricultural work. However, the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba, C.G. in Claim Case No.32/2010 vide award dated 28.04.2017, assessed and awarded the compensation of Rs.5,53,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company/Respondent No.3. 5. Aggrieved by the said awards, the Insurance Company filed separate appeals before this Court, challenging its liability on the ground that the vehicle was carrying unauthorized persons, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company 5 submits that at the time of the accident, apart from the driver and helper, four other persons were sitting in the vehicle as gratuitous passengers which constitutes a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated from liability. He further submits that as per the information recorded at Katghora Police Station, two additional persons were reported to have sustained injuries in the accident, thereby indicating that the number of occupants were travelling in the offending vehicle. In view of the above, it is prayed that the appellant–Insurance Company be exonerated from any liability. 7. None has appeared on behalf of the respective respondents. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record. 9. Upon examination of the evidence on record, it is clear that the Insurance Company has failed to prove the presence of any unauthorized passengers in the offending vehicle. The injured helper Prakash Kumar, specifically denied that four persons were seated in the vehicle at the time of the incident. Although the FIR related to the accident mentions that Suresh Kumar and Ajay Kumar Yadav were injured, but it does not state that they were travelling in the offending vehicle. Moreover, the insurer has not produced any oral or documentary evidence to establish that any unauthorized 6 passengers were present in the vehicle at the time of the accident. A mere reference to injured individuals in the FIR does not constitute conclusive proof of their presence in the vehicle. Furthermore, the fact that deceased- Laxman Singh, was travelling in the vehicle does not, by itself, prove that the vehicle was being used to transport unauthorized passengers. The material on record confirms that the vehicle was being used for coal transportation, in accordance with its valid permit and insurance policy. Therefore, no breach of the policy conditions has been established. The Tribunal has rightly held that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 10. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the well- settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297, wherein it was observed as follows: “The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to 7 prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding the use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.” 11. Applying the above principle to the present case, it is evident that the burden lies upon the insurer to establish a willful breach of the policy conditions. In the absence of any such proof, the insurer cannot be absolved of its statutory liability to indemnify the compensation. The findings of the learned Tribunal are based on a cogent appreciation of the evidence and do not warrant any interference. 12. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Insurance Company, being without any substance, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha