1 2025:CGHC:48283 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1840 of 2018 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Address- Madina Manzil Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. And Divisional Manager, Near Rajendra Park Chowk Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh, (Policy No. 191/100/31/2015/3044) Limitation Date - 17.05.2015, Issue Date 18.05.2014 (Insurance Company of Vehicle No. CG/07/T/2124) ... Appellant versus 1 - Palan Das S/o Late Mehttar Das Aged About 54 Years R/o Bhoinapara, Balod, Thana - Balod - District- Chhattisgarh, Present Address - Bajrang Para, Station Maroda, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Niteshwari Banjare D/o Palan Das Aged About 15 Years R/o Bhoinapara, Balod, Thana - Balod - District - Balod, Next Friend Father Palan Das S/o Late Mehttar Das, Age 54 Years, Present Address - Bajrang Para, Station Maroda, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Goyal Banjare S/o Palan Das, Aged About 20 Years R/o Bhoinapara, Balod, Thana - Balod - District -Balod, Present Address - Bajrang Para, Station Maroda, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Anand Yadav S/o Bindu Yadav Aged About 41 Years, R/o Shyam Nagar, Camp -2, Bhilai, Thana - Chhawani, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - G. Joga Rao S/o G. Adinarayan R/o - Quarter No.12/A, Street No.3, Sector-1, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.08 14:25:20 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Sukhdew Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 19.09.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 01.08.2018 passed by the learned Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.166/2015 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of this appeal are that on 21.05.2014, Yashwant Banjare (since deceased) was travelling along with his friend and coming from Station Maroda Bhilai on a motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-07-CA-4832, when he reached near Kachnar Road, one Auto Rikshaw bearing registration No.CG-07- T-2124 driven by non-applicant No.1 dashed the motorcycle of Yashwant, due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries over his person. He was taken to Sector-9 hospital, where he died during the course of treatment. 3. The claimants being father and siblings of deceased have filed claim application under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles 3 Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act) and claiming compensation of Rs.33,38,000/- under various heads. 4. Non-applicant No.1 has filed reply to the claim application and denied the facts stated in the claim application and alleged that the claimants had filed a false report with the police. He contended that the compensation amount was inflated and that the deceased had violated traffic rules by riding his motorcycle at high speed with three passengers, lost control, and caused the accident. He asserted that he had driven carefully at a moderate speed and was not liable for the accident. If any liability arose, it lay with the insurance company as the Auto Rickshaw was insured. 5. Non-applicant No.2 also filed reply and denied the allegations stating that the deceased had violated traffic rules, was riding with three passengers on a two-wheeler, lost control due to high speed, and caused the accident. He claimed no liability and submitted that, if any liability arose, it rested with the insurance company. 6. The appellant/non-applicant No.3 filed its separate reply and denied the allegations stating that registration of a criminal case did not establish guilt, no documents regarding the offending vehicle were provided, and the compensation claimed was inflated. It was contended that the deceased, along with two passengers, rode a motorcycle exceeding permitted capacity, 4 violated traffic rules, and lost control upon encountering an oncoming Auto Rickshaw, causing a head-on accident. Non- applicant No.3 asserted that it was not negligent and that liability, if any, would depend on verification of the vehicle’s RC, permit, fitness, insurance, and driving licence. 7. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,80,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of commendation upon the Insurance Company i.e. the appellant herein. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits as under :- • First Ground: Liability claimed on the basis of a fake insurance policy- (i) Learned counsel submitted that, as per Paras 12 and 13 of the award, the insurance company had lodged an FIR at Thana Mohdapara, Raipur, and three persons were arrested pursuant thereto. Documents from Exhibit D-1 to D-21 were placed on record before the Tribunal. At the end of Para 12 of the award, it was recorded that “the said policy was not issued on the day the accident occurred. 5 (ii) Insurance witness NAW-3, Pooran Chand Kuldeep, stated in Para 3 of his evidence that an application under the Right to Information Act was submitted to the Station House Officer, Godhapara, for Crime No. 33/2015 (Exhibit D-20), and details of how the policy was issued were submitted (Exhibit D-21). He confirmed that on the date of the accident, no policy was issued by the office, and copies of registered notices and receipts showed that the policyholder did not respond. (iii) The witness further stated that the insurance company had no liability under the policy, the registered notice was returned on 06.06.2015, and the policyholder G. Jogarao did not respond. (iv) In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in MAC No.1229/2009 (Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Babu Singh and Others) decided on 27.09.2010. • Second Ground: Non-issuance or non-renewal of permit for the insured Auto-Rickshaw No. CG 07T/2124. (i) Learned counsel submitted that under Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, renewal of permit is mandatory upon expiry, and government fees must be paid for each renewal period. 6 (ii) Tribunal had framed Issue No. 3 as: “Whether the respondent A1 drove the vehicle in question in violation of the insurance conditions.” (iii) RTO witness Lokesh Kumar deposed as follows: Para 1: The registration, permit, and fitness details of vehicle No. CG 07T/2124 were brought. While initially issued, the permit was not renewed thereafter. Para 2: Certified copies of permit (Exhibit D-1) and fitness (Exhibit D-2) were submitted. It was confirmed that for the date of the accident (21.05.2014), the permit had not been renewed. (iv) For passenger vehicles, unlike goods vehicles, no exemption under Section 66(i) of the MV Act exists; hence absence of a valid permit renders the insurance company not liable. (v) Reliance was placed on MAC 424/2014, Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company v. Sudhir Kumar, decided on 23.09.2020. • Third Ground: Absence of valid fitness certificate for the insured vehicle. (i) Learned counsel submitted that after expiry of the fitness period, renewal is mandatory, and fees must be paid as per Rules. 7 (ii) RTO witness Lokesh Kumar confirmed submission of certified details of fitness (Exhibit D-2) and stated that the vehicle had no valid fitness certificate on the date of accident. (iii) The Tribunal erroneously held the fitness document to be valid, whereas it was not in the name of the owner G. Jogarao. (iv) Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 517 and Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others, (2018) 7 SCC 558. • Fourth Ground: Absence of valid driving license endorsement for the Auto-Rickshaw. (i) Learned counsel submitted that in the absence of a valid endorsement, the insured vehicle was driven illegally, and hence the insurance company is not liable. He has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663. 9. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that, after considering the entire material on record, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre amount of compensation, which ought to be enhanced suitably, although he has not filed any cross-appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount. 8 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 11. The learned Claims Tribunal, in paragraphs 10 to 13 of the impugned award, has observed that the burden of proving violations of insurance conditions rested on the appellant i.e. the insurance company. Evidence was adduced by NAW-1, Lokesh Kumar, regarding the registration, permit, and fitness of the vehicle (Exhibits D-1 and D-2), which showed that the vehicle was duly registered, and the fitness and permit were originally issued, though not renewed thereafter. NAW-2, Satyendra Kumar Soni, confirmed that Anand Kumar Yadav, possessed a valid LMV driving license (Ex.D/3-C) on the date of the accident. PW3, Puranchand Kuldeep, deposed regarding the alleged fraudulent insurance policy, stating that an FIR had been filed in respect of certain policies and that the policy in question was issued after the date of the accident; however, no cancellation certificate was produced, and the premium collection report indicated that payment was received prior to the accident. On a careful appraisal of the evidence and documents, the Tribunal held that it was not established that the vehicle lacked a valid insurance policy on the date of the accident, and that non-applicant No.1 did not operate the vehicle in violation of the insurance conditions. 12. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the insurance company, the statements of the witnesses, and the 9 documentary evidence placed on record, it is evident that NAW-1, Lokesh Kumar, produced the registration, permit, and fitness particulars of the vehicle (Exhibits D-1 and D-2), which confirm that the vehicle was duly registered, and fitness and permit certificates were initially issued, though not renewed thereafter. NAW-2, Satyendra Kumar Soni, established that non-applicant No.1, Anand Kumar Yadav, possessed a valid and effective LMV driving license (Ex.D/3-C) on the date of the accident, 21.05.2014. NAW-3, Puranchand Kuldeep, deposed regarding the alleged fraudulent insurance policy and stated that an FIR had been lodged in respect of certain policies and that the policy in question was purportedly issued after the date of the accident. However, no cancellation certificate of the policy was produced, and the premium collection report confirms that the insurance premium was received prior to the accident. No evidence was placed on record to indicate that the vehicle lacked insurance coverage on the date of the accident. Accordingly, the plea of a fake or invalid insurance policy is not sustainable, and the Tribunal rightly held that the insurance company is liable under the policy. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the insurance policy was fake is not sustainable. The insurance company has failed to produce any reliable or sufficient evidence to prove this assertion. As the onus of proving the invalidity or falsity of the insurance policy lies squarely upon the insurance company, mere allegations without supporting documentary 10 evidence are insufficient to discharge this burden. In the absence of such proof, it cannot be held that the vehicle lacked a valid insurance policy on the date of the accident. 14. The contentions regarding invalid permit and fitness are equally untenable. While it is true that the permit and fitness certificates were not renewed after initial issuance, the vehicle was otherwise duly registered and fit for operation at the relevant time. Moreover, no credible evidence was placed to suggest that the vehicle’s condition or operation violated the insurance conditions. The plea regarding a fake or invalid driving license is also wholly unsustainable, as non-applicant No.1 held a valid and effective license for operating the passenger auto-rickshaw on the date of the accident. 15. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company are clearly distinguishable on facts. Those cases involved vehicles where permits, fitness, or insurance were admittedly not in order, or the policy was expressly invalid on the date of the accident. In contrast, in the present case, the vehicle was duly registered, insured, and driven by a licenced driver, and no such breach has been established. 16. In the above circumstances, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed. The findings of the learned Claims Tribunal regarding the liability of the insurance company are affirmed. The appellant/insurance company is held liable to 11 indemnify the respondents No.1 to 3 in accordance with the terms of the policy. 17. The record of the concerned Claims Tribunal is directed to be returned to the Claims Tribunal for necessary information and compliance of the directions contained in this judgment. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh