1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 159 of 2017 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Aged About 18 Years Plot No.1, Maruti Heights, 4th Floor, Near Maruti Show Room, G.E.Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Insurer Of Truck No. M.H.31 C.B./6255, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Praveen Bano Wd/o Late Nasim Ali Aged About 26 Years Wrongly Mentioned As 40 Years In Award R/o Subhash Nagar, Moudha Para, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Nishad D/o Late Nasim Ali, Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Praveen Bano, R/o Subhash Nagar, Moudha Para, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Tarana Bano D/o Late Nasim Ali, Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Praveen Bano, R/o Subhash Nagar, Moudha Para, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Alam Bano D/o Late Nasim Ali, Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Praveen Bano, R/o Subhash Nagar, Moudha Para, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ku. Nasima Bano D/o Late Nasim Ali, Aged About 6-1/2 Months, Minor Through Guardian Mother Praveen Bano, R/o Subhash Nagar, Moudha Para, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants, 6 - Radhelal Sahu S/o Bahalram Sahu, Permanent Address Village Sigharghat, Thana And Tahsil Khiragarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Present Address- House Of Horilal Sahu, Near Buddha Mata Mandir, Yashodhara Nagar, Thana- Yasodhara Nagar, Nagpur VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 District Nagpur Maharashtra ...............Driver Of Truck No. M.H. 31 C.B./6255, District : Nagpur, Maharashtra 7 - Nazma Begum W/o Mohammad Aasle, Address-1- Plot No. 277, Mahal Kila, Nagpur District Nagpur Maharashtra Address-2- Kendriya Vidyalaya Road, Near Deshmukh House, Ward No.18, Mahal, Nagpur District Nagpur Maharashtra ...............Owner Of Truck No. M.H.31 C.B./ 6255, District : Nagpur, Maharashtra ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 04.07.2025 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 133/2012, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹11,37,750/- along with 6% interest from the date of application till realization in favour of the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5—the legal heirs of deceased Nasim Ali, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 28.07.2012 and fastened the liability upon the non- applicants jointly and severally i.e. appellant/Insurance Company and respondent Nos. 6 & 7. The appellant–Insurance Company challenges the said award primarily on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving 3 license on the date of the accident, thereby resulting in a breach of the insurance policy. 2. Facts of the case are that the deceased, Nasim Ali, aged about 28 years, was employed as a driver earning approximately ₹7,000/- per month. On 28.07.2012, while he was standing near a Bolero vehicle parked on National Highway No.6, near Manegaon Pal Dhaba, he was hit by a Truck bearing Registration No. MH-31 CB-6255 (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle), which was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.6. The impact caused severe injuries, and despite receiving medical treatment at several hospitals, Nasim Ali succumbed to his injuries. His legal heirs—respondents No.1 to 5 herein—filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹26,92,000/-. 3. The Insurance Company denied liability, inter alia, on the grounds that the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit and fitness certificate, and the driver did not possess a valid driving license on the date of the accident. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed an award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Against the said award, appellant-Insurance Company is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company submits that the license of the driver/respondent No.6 had expired on 4 20.07.2012, whereas the accident occurred on 28.07.2012, and hence, at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license. This, according to the appellant, constitutes a fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance policy, absolving the insurer of its liability. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.7/owner of the vehicle submits that the Insurance Company failed to discharge its burden to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of a valid driving license. It is stated that the Tribunal, in Para 11 of the award, clearly recorded that despite ample opportunity, the Insurance Company did not produce any conclusive documentary evidence nor examined any official from the concerned RTO Nagpur to establish the alleged invalidity or expiry of the license. It is further stated that the presumption in law is in favour of validity unless rebutted by credible evidence, which is lacking in the present case. 7. This Court is required to determine the following issues: (i) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident? (ii) Whether the Insurance Company has successfully proved a breach of policy conditions so as to absolve it of its statutory liability (iii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The burden of proving that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license lies squarely on the Insurance Company. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Pappu and Others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another reported in 2018 (3) SCC 208, in respect of burden of proof regarding a valid license, has held as follows:- “12. This Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297, has noticed the defences available to the Insurance Company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the M.V. Act, 1988. the Insurance Company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorised person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving license. The onus would shift on the Insurance Company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving license at the relevant time.” 10. The insurer must not only plead but also prove the breach with cogent evidence. In the present case, the appellant merely asserted that the license expired on 20.07.2012, without producing the original license, certified copy of the license details from the issuing RTO, any summonsing any witness from RTO Nagpur to authenticate such claim. 11. The Tribunal rightly observed that no attempt was made by the insurer to call any competent witness from the concerned RTO to substantiate the expiry or non-renewal of the license. In absence of 6 such evidence, the Tribunal was justified in drawing an adverse inference against the Insurance Company. Mere filing of a written statement or making oral submissions is insufficient in law to discharge the burden of proof regarding the alleged breach 12. Given the above discussion, the Insurance Company has failed to establish a breach of the policy condition concerning a valid driving license. Therefore, no exoneration from liability can be granted. Further, no credible evidence was presented regarding the alleged lack of permit or fitness certificate of the vehicle, and those arguments also remain unproven. 13. As regards the compensation, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of ₹11,37,750/- along with interest 6% from the date of application till its realization, based on the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.4,500/- on notional basis, his age in between 28-30 years, application of the appropriate multiplier i.e. 17, and reasonable figures towards funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, and other heads. This computation is in consonance with the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC , (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680. Hence, there is no perversity, arbitrariness, or illegality is found in the Tribunal’s assessment. 14. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the Insurance Company has failed to prove the alleged breach of policy conditions regarding the driver’s license. The award passed by the Tribunal is 7 legally just and proper. There is no ground for interference in the findings of fact or the computation of compensation. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The award dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 133/2012 is affirmed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha