1 2025:CGHC:48288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1314 of 2017 Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Ashok Kumar Pandey S/o Vishwanath Pandey, Aged About 39 Years Caste Brahman, R/o Village And Post Udhnapur, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawan, District Korea, Chhattisgarh 2 - Reshma Ansari W/o Md. Shahid, Aged About 23 Years Caste Muslim, R/o Village And Post Kapildhara Colony, Bijuri, Post Bijuri, District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh. 3 - Raju @ Govind Prasad Kewat S/o Motilal Kewat, R/o Village Manendragarh, Ward No. 18, District Korea, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rajesh Gupta S/o Ramesh Gupta,(Insurance Agent), Aged About 35 Years, R/o Jhagrakhand Road, Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Surbhi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Gaurav Lasker, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.08 14:24:40 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 19.09.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 19.05.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.131/2014 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimant 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 15.03.2008, at approximately 2:25 PM, non-applicant No.2, the driver of the Jeep bearing registration No. CG-16-ZD-0915 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”), collided with the motorcycle of the claimant, Ashok Kumar Pandey, bearing registration No. CG-12- ZM-3306. As a result, Ashok Kumar Pandey fell and sustained grievous injuries, including fracture of the femur and knee of his left leg. He received treatment at Baikunthpur and Bilaspur Hospitals and has suffered permanent disability. 3. The claimant has filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.66,60,000/- under various heads. 4. Non-applicant No. 1 filed her written statement and denied ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident and all facts relating to it. She stated that the claimant was unemployed and 3 did not suffer any permanent disability. The vehicle’s documents were valid, and the driver held a valid license. She further contended that the claimant inflated the claim amount and claimed that the insurance company, was liable as the offending vehicle was insured, requesting dismissal of the claim application. 5. No reply was filed on behalf of non-applicant No. 2 as he was proceeded ex-parte. 6. The appellant/non-applicant No. 3 stated that the claimant did not possess a valid motorcycle license and drove recklessly. The offending vehicle No.CG-16-ZD-0915 was not insured with them on the accident date; the policy was valid only from 25.03.2008 to 24.03.2009. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 had submitted incorrect proposal forms, which were not used by the company, and the policy number mentioned belonged to another vehicle. The offending vehicle was driven in violation of the insurance terms, and the claim should be dismissed. 7. Non-applicant No. 4 stated that the offending vehicle was not insured with them on the accident date. Santosh Kumar submitted a proposal form on 09.01.2008 for insurance, but the RC book was not provided, and the premium was not collected. As the proposal was incomplete, the insurance was not accepted, and non-applicant No. 4 was not liable to pay compensation. 8. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, learned Claims 4 Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- 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. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is illegal, bad in law, and contrary to the provisions. Therefore, the award is liable to be set aside, and the appellant should be exonerated from all liability. He further submits that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in holding that the offending vehicle was insured on the date of the accident. It further erred in accepting the proposal form as valid, which is illegal. Consequently, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and should be exonerated from all liability. It has been contended that learned Tribunal erred in observing that the premium for the offending vehicle had not been deposited. The Tribunal also failed to consider the period mentioned in the disputed cover note, i.e., 09.01.2008 to 08.01.2009. After the accident, Santosh Kumar deposited the premium, and the insurance policy was issued from 25.03.2008 to 24.03.2009. Therefore, on the date of the accident (15.03.2008), no premium had been deposited by Santosh Kumar or any relative of the vehicle owner, and the award is liable to be set aside. It has been further argued that the liability cannot arise because the premium for the policy had not been deposited in the appellant’s 5 office prior to the accident. The receipt of the deposited premium was also not submitted before the Claims Tribunal. As such, the accident date (15.03.2008) is not covered under any policy. The new policy became effective only from 25.03.2008 to 24.03.2009. The proposal form dated 09.01.2008 was neither received nor accepted by the appellant, and no premium amount was collected for generation of a valid policy. Therefore, the appeal be allowed and Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liability to pay the amount of compensation. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the claimant suffered grievous injuries in the accident caused by the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, resulting in permanent disability. The offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No. 2 and was in his control at the time of the accident. He further submits that the claimant incurred medical expenses and suffered loss of income due to the accident, which are compensable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The disability sustained by the claimant is genuine and must be assessed as per medical evidence. The claim amount has been correctly calculated, and the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is justified and should be upheld. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, i.e. driver of the offending vehicle submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company as he held a 6 valid driving licence on the date of the accident and that the vehicle’s documents were valid and in order. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 13. The learned Claims Tribunal, in paragraphs 21 to 31 of the impugned award, has held that the primary issue regarding liability for compensation was whether the offending vehicle, Jeep No. CG-16-ZD-0915, was insured on the date of the accident. The vehicle owner, non-applicant No. 1, claimed to have paid the insurance premium to agent non-applicant No. 4 for the period 09/01/2008 to 08/01/2009 and received a cover note, which was later cancelled, and a new policy issued for 25/03/2008 to 24/03/2009. The insurance company denied receiving the proposal or premium for the earlier period. Evidence from the vehicle owner and the insurance agent established payment of premium and issuance of the cover note (Exhibit NA-1 and Exhibit NA-2). The insurance agent admitted affixing the company seal on the proposal form, though the company denied authorization. The Tribunal observed that the circumstances, including the affixed seal and acceptance of the proposal form (Exhibit NA-2), indicated that the insurance company had effectively accepted the insurance proposal before the accident. Further, the post-accident policy issuance appeared to be an attempt to evade liability. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the insurance company was liable to compensate the claimant for the accident. 7 14. After careful consideration of the submissions, pleadings, and evidence on record, it is evident that the primary dispute in this appeal pertains to the liability of the insurance company in respect of the accident involving offending vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing registration No. CG-16-ZD-0915. The evidence of the vehicle owner clearly establishes that the insurance premium was paid to the insurance agent prior to the date of the accident, and a cover note (Exhibit NA-2) was issued in respect of the vehicle for the period 09/01/2008 to 08/01/2009. The insurance agent admitted issuing the proposal form and affixing the company seal thereon, thereby confirming that the insurance proposal was submitted and accepted in accordance with standard practice. 15. The contentions raised by the insurance company, including non- receipt of the proposal and cancellation of the cover note, do not negate the fact that the proposal form had reached the insurance office, and the seal of the insurance company was affixed. The subsequent issuance of a policy for the post-accident period (25/03/2008 to 24/03/2009) does not absolve the insurance company of liability arising from the accident that occurred on 15/03/2008. The Tribunal rightly observed that the insurance company cannot avoid its responsibility on technical grounds, and the claim of the insurance company regarding non-payment of premium for the earlier period is not substantiated. 8 16. Further, the Claims Tribunal rightly considered the medical evidence and disability sustained by the claimant, which corroborates the extent of injury and loss suffered. No material infirmity, error of law, or mis-appreciation of evidence has been demonstrated by the appellant to justify interference with the award. 17. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the insurance company, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is upheld in its entirety, and the insurance company is directed to satisfy the award as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As a consequence thereof, interim relief granted in favour of the appellant stands vacated. 18. 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/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh