1 2025:CGHC:50511 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 249 of 2017 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Shiv Mangal Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha, Pandri, Police Station Pandri, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............As Per Claim Application- Insurer Of Vehicle Registration No. H.R.63-A-6315, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Mu. Basanti Wd/o Late Baijnath Yadav, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Pandripani, Gram Panchayat Nag-Darha, Post Gersa, Thana And Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kamleshwar S/o Baijnath Yadav, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Pandripani, Gram Panchayat Nag-Darha, Post Gersa, Thana And Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Dileshwar S/o Baijnath Yadav, Aged About 16 Years Representing Through Mother Basanti Wd/o Baijnath, R/o Village Pandripani, Gram Panchayat Nag-Darha, Post Gersa, Thana And Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Minor Rameshwar S/o Baijnath Yadav, Aged About 11 Years Representing Through Mother Basanti Wd/o Baijnath, R/o Village Pandripani, Gram Panchayat Nag-Darha, Post Gersa, Thana And Tahsil RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Minor Parmeshwar S/o Baijnath Yadav, Aged About 8 Years Representing Through Mother Basanti Wd/o Baijnath, R/o Village Pandripani, Gram Panchayat Nag-Darha, Post Gersa, Thana And Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Chhotu Urf Mohammad Shahjade S/o Mohd. Amimullah Musalman, Aged About 26 Years R/o Dudhi, Ward No.05, Maldeva Road, Police Station Katwali, Dudhi, Distt. Sonbhadra U.P. ..................Driver Of Vehicle Registration No. H.R.63-A-6315, District : Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh 7 - Maninder Singh S/o Harminder Singh, Address House No.889, Sector 6, Bahadurgarh Hariyana ..................Owner Of Vehicle Registration No. H.R.63-A-6315, Haryana ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 4 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent No. 6 & 7 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/10/2025 1. The insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the liability part by assailing the award dated 29.9.2016 stating that the cover note was not produced which may relevant to show that the vehicle was duly insured. 3 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellant appeared before the Learned Tribunal and filed their written statement, denying all allegations made in the claim application by respondent vehicle No. 5. It was specifically denied that the said vehicle was insured with the appellant under cover note no. PC-0610470194. The appellant further pleaded that the aforesaid document was neither issued by the appellant nor by any of its authorized agents, and that the said document had been lost. Consequently, a public notice regarding the loss was published in a newspaper on 07.10.2008, and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. On the basis of the pleadings, the Learned Tribunal framed several issues but failed to frame the proper ones. After appreciating the evidence, documents, and materials on record, the Learned Tribunal decided the matter against the appellant and in favor of the claimants. The Tribunal failed to decide the relevant issues and passed the impugned award, which is bad in law. The owner also failed to produce the original copy of the questioned cover note. The appellant examined its official, filed relevant documents, and marked them without any objection. It was specifically stated by the appellant’s official that the vehicle was not insured with the appellant under cover note no. PC-0610476194 and that the document was lost, for which a public notice dated 07.10.2008 was published and produced before the Learned Tribunal. The appellant has deposited Rs. 25,000/-, and a copy of the deposit receipt is filed. Respondents 4 No. 1 to 5 have filed an execution petition before the 5th Additional MACT, Raigarh, since the post of 3rd Additional MACT, Raigarh, is vacant, and accordingly, a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited in the court of the 5th Additional MACT, Raigarh, on 20.01.2017 in Execution Petition Case No. 58 of 2016. The claimants have impleaded the appellant as a party in compliance with Section 170 of the Act. The application under Section 170 of the Act was filed on 02.03.2016 and allowed on 12.04.2016. An exemption application for filing a copy of the order sheet relating to Section 170 of the Act is being filed separately. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant–Insurance Company respectfully submits that the vehicle in question was never insured with the appellant company. It is contended that the alleged cover note, which is purportedly relied upon to establish the existence of an insurance policy, had in fact been lost, and therefore, no valid or subsisting contract of insurance can be inferred or presumed on the basis of such a lost or untraceable document. In the absence of a valid policy or any admissible evidence proving the issuance of a genuine cover note, the fastening of liability upon the appellant–Insurance Company is wholly untenable in law and contrary to the established principles governing contractual obligations. Hence, the finding fixing liability on the appellant is erroneous, unsustainable, and liable to be set aside. 5 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 contends that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly and justly fastened the liability upon the insurance company. He submits that there is nothing on record to establish that the vehicle in question was not duly insured with the present insurance company, and hence, the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect remains unassailable. The counsel further argues that the Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, has reached a reasoned and well-founded conclusion in fixing the liability upon the insurer. Therefore, the impugned award suffers from no infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court, and the decision of the Tribunal fastening liability upon the insurance company deserves to be upheld in its entirety. 5. None for respondents No. 6 & 7 i.e. driver and owner of offending vehicle. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Upon a careful perusal of the record, it becomes evident that the alleged cover note, which the insurance company claims to have lost and on the basis of which the vehicle is purported to have been insured, has not been duly proved by the company. When the insurance company takes the plea that such a cover note has been lost, it bears the legal burden of establishing that fact before the learned Tribunal in accordance with law. Furthermore, the very act of the insurance company filing an application under Section 6 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly indicates that it has admitted the existence of an insurance policy covering the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Consequently, a presumption naturally arises against the appellant–insurance company that the vehicle was duly insured on the date and time of the incident. The application under Section 170 of the Act, filed to obtain permission for raising broader defences, further reinforces the inference that the company itself acknowledges the insurance coverage. Therefore, in light of these circumstances, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held the insurance company liable for the compensation, and there appears to be no legal infirmity in its finding. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat