1 2025:CGHC:50638 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 728 of 2017 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Behind Hotel Laxman, Krishi Upaj Mandi Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Buddhuram S/o Sukalu Ram Yadav, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sonakukanar Thana Gadiras District Sukma, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Hitendra Singh S/o Ramsingh Thakur, Aged About 30 Years R/o Narayan Mandir Para Dantewada, Thana Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 - Anoop Sood (Died And Deleted) As Per Court Order Dated 09-10- 2025, Through Lrs- 3.1 - Shubham Sood S/o Late Anoop Sood R/o Old Rest House, Main Road Dantewada, Distt. Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 MAC No. 726 of 2017 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Behind Hotel Laxman, Krishi Upaj Mandi Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh. ---Apellant(s) Versus 1 - Sonadhar S/o Sahdev, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sonakukanar Thana Gadiras District Sukma, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Hitendra Singh S/o Ramsingh Thakur, Aged About 30 Years R/o Narayan Mandir Para Dantewada, Thana Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Anoop Sood (Died) Through Lrs As Per Honbel Court Order Dated 09/10/2025. 3.1 - Shubham Sood S/o Late Anoop Sood Resident Of Old Rest House, Main Road Dantewada, District- Dantewada (C.G.). -- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 2 : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/10/2025 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 9.2.2017 has been passed. MAC Nos. 728 of 2017 and 726 of 2017 are insurer’s appeal against the award dated 9.2.2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar, Dantewada, C.G. 3 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 01-12-2009 at about 2:00 PM, the injured Budhduram was riding a motorcycle when a pickup vehicle bearing registration C.G18 H/0041 came from the front and collided with the motorcycle, causing injuries to Budhduram. According to paragraph 16 of the award, the injured claimant was admitted to the Government Hospital from 02-12-2009 to 04-02- 2010 for treatment. The owner and driver of the pickup did not present any witnesses before the tribunal. However, as per paragraph 13 of the award, the insurance company produced an eyewitness from the RTO office in Dantewada named Mithlesh Kumar, who gave evidence along with records. Additionally, the insurance company’s witness, Mr. Iyyar, stated in paragraph 12 of the award that the driving license (exhibit NA-1) was issued on 02-05-2014 to respondent no. 2, Hitendra Singh, indicating a clear breach of policy. The tribunal wrongly awarded compensation based on an earlier Supreme Court view, ignoring the insurance company's proven breach of policy as per issue no. 3, thereby making the appellant insurance company not liable for compensation. It is also admitted on record that both vehicles came from the front, indicating contributory negligence, yet the tribunal wrongly ruled against the insurance company. Moreover, in the relief clause, there is no liability assigned to the owner, respondent no. 2, Anup Sood, so in the absence of liability on the 4 owner, the insurance company’s liability cannot be fastened. Lastly, the tribunal incorrectly found that claimant Budhduram suffered grievous injury in paragraph 16 of the award despite no medical evidence from any doctor. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per paragraph 19 of the plaint and the FIR, the accident on 01.12.2009 occurred when the respondent no. 2, driving the goods vehicle C.G.18 H0641 at excessive speed and negligently, collided head-on with the appellant’s insured motorcycle, which was being ridden by the claimant with a passenger; while the tribunal failed to properly consider issue no. 2 regarding contributory negligence despite record showing negligence on both vehicles. Further, the appellant insurance company contended that respondent no. 2 was driving the goods vehicle on the basis of an LMV licence, contrary to the amended Section 14(2)(a) of the MV Act, 1988, and therefore the insurer cannot be held liable. Evidence adduced, including testimony of witness Mithlesh Kumar from RTO and documentary proof, showed that the driver’s licence permitting operation of a transport vehicle was issued only on 02.05.2014, well after the accident, and the vehicle was a goods transport vehicle requiring such a licence. Seizure memo (Exhibit A-7) corroborates the absence of a valid licence. Hence, the tribunal erred in deciding issue no. 3, and the 5 appellant insurance company should be exonerated from liability for non-compliance with the policy terms. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposes the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. After considering the facts and evidence on record, it appears that the accident occurred on 01-12-2009 involved a head-on collision between the pickup vehicle driven by respondent No. 2 and the motorcycle ridden by the claimant Budhduram, resulting in injuries for which the claimant was hospitalized from 02-12- 2009 to 04-02-2010. The tribunal’s findings, including the extent of injury and compensation, are supported by the claimant’s medical records and other documentary evidence. Although the insurance company produced witnesses alleging invalid license and breach of policy, however, it has not been duly proved and these contentions do not absolve the insurer of liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, as the insurer of the vehicle cannot evade responsibility by disputing contributory negligence or technicalities regarding the driver’s licence. The tribunal appropriately considered the evidence and correctly awarded compensation to the injured claimant. 6 7. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat