1 2025:CGHC:50755 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1011 of 2017 1 - The United India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Jail Road Kachaheri Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .............Insurer Of Mini Bus No. C G - 05- J- 1825., Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Shri Jagdish Prasad Kumawat S/o Tulsaram Kumawat, Aged About 45 Years R/o Bharatmata School, Behind E W S House No. 932, Tatibandh, Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Mohini Kumawat, W/o Jagdish Prasad Kumawat, Aged About 42 Years R/o Bharatmata School, Behind E W S House No. 932, Tatibandh, Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mohammad Aftab S/o Mohammad Aslam R/o Infront Of Modahapara, Police Station Moudahapara, Raipur, Through Khurshid Khan, S/o Yakub Khan, Takiyapara, Near Asharfi Kirana Store, Kotwali, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. .........................Driver Of Mini Bus No. C G -05- J- 1825., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Khurshid Khan S/o Yakub Khan Takiyapara, Near Asharfi Kirana RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Store, Kotwali, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...................Owner Of Mini Bus No. C G- 05- J- 1825., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Mamta Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 & 4 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/10/2025 1. The insurance company is aggrieved by the portion of the award dated 7.3.2017, whereby it has been held liable to pay compensation to the claimant, despite its specific contention that there had been a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The company submits that the learned tribunal erred in law and on facts in rejecting its plea regarding the violation of policy provisions, and in fastening liability upon it contrary to the contractual obligations and statutory safeguards available under the Motor Vehicles Act. The impugned award, to the extent it imposes such liability on the insurer while negating the plea of breach, is therefore unjust, unsustainable, and calls for appropriate interference by the appellate forum. 2. It was contended that the accident in question resulted from the contributory negligence of both vehicles involved—namely, the Mini Bus bearing registration number CG-05-J-1825 and the Motorcycle bearing registration number CG-17/KD/3136. It was 3 further asserted that since the mishap occurred due to the negligent acts and omissions on the part of the drivers of both vehicles, the liability for payment of compensation ought to have been apportioned between them in accordance with the principle of contributory negligence. Consequently, it was argued that both the Mini Bus and the Motorcycle should have been held jointly responsible for the occurrence of the accident and correspondingly liable to pay the compensation determined. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the offending Mini Bus bearing registration No. CG-05-J-1825 was being operated in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, inasmuch as the said vehicle did not possess a valid and effective permit authorizing its use on the date and at the time of the accident. It is contended that the absence of such a permit constitutes a fundamental breach of the policy conditions, thereby absolving the insurer of any liability arising from the said accident. He further submits that the statutory requirement of holding a valid permit is an essential precondition for lawful operation of a transport vehicle on public roads, and any contravention thereof not only attracts penal consequences under the Motor Vehicles Act but also vitiates the contractual obligations under the insurance coverage. 4. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 supported the impugned award, contending that the learned Claims Tribunal, after due 4 appreciation of the evidence and material placed on record, has rightly and justifiably fastened the liability upon the insurance company. It was further submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are well-reasoned, legally sound, and based on a proper interpretation of the contractual and statutory provisions governing the rights and liabilities of the parties. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the award suffers from no infirmity, irregularity, or error warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court, and as such, the same deserves to be upheld in its entirety. 5. None for respondents No. 3 & 4 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Upon a comprehensive perusal of the record, it clearly emerges that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely the Mini Bus bearing registration No. CG-05-J-1825, was driving in a negligent manner, resulting in the fastening of liability upon the insurance company. The evidence on record further reveals that the said vehicle was duly insured under a policy covering third-party risk (Exhibit D-3). The witness produced on behalf of the insurance company (NAW-2) has, in fact, admitted this position, although the company sought to dispute the validity of the vehicle’s permit and fitness certificate. However, such contentions were not substantiated by cogent evidence. Moreover, the insurance 5 company’s own witness conceded that the policy was valid in respect of third-party liability, and accordingly, the deceased, who had sustained grievous injuries while traveling on a motorcycle and subsequently succumbed, was covered under the said insurance. The objections raised by the insurance company, therefore, remained unproved. The learned Claims Tribunal, after an elaborate discussion and careful consideration of the entire material on record, rightly concluded that the vehicle was duly insured, that no breach of the terms and conditions of the policy was established, and consequently held the insurance company liable to pay just compensation to the claimants. 8. Considering the entirety of the circumstances and upon careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the learned Claims Tribunal has correctly and judiciously fixed the liability upon the insurance company to pay the compensation amount. The Tribunal’s findings are based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of evidence, and the award so passed appears to be just, fair, and reasonable in the eyes of law. This Court does not find any infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the impugned judgment warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat