1 2025:CGHC:58735 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1598 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Bramh Road, Near Kumkum Hotel, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 3 And 6), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Kanak Singh S/o Prem Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Govindpur, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Panmeshwari, W/o Kanak Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Govindpur, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No. 2), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Leelawati W/o Ravi Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Govindpur, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No. 3), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Janu Singh S/o Late Ravi Singh Aged About 6 Years Minor, Through Their Grand Father Kanak Singh, S/o Prem Singh (Respondent No. 1), R/o Village Govindpur, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No. 4), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 5 - Lalit Singh S/o Late Ravi Singh Aged About 4 Years Minor, Through Their Grand Father Kanak Singh, S/o Prem Singh (Respondent No. 1), R/o Village Govindpur, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No. 5), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sukhdev Singh S/o Late Ravi Singh Aged About 2 Years Minor, Through Their Grand Father Kanak Singh, S/o Prem Singh (Respondent No. 1), R/o Village Govindpur, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No. 6), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Nand Kishor Singh S/o Terasu Singh Aged About 30 Years Caste - Suryvanshi Khairwar, Occupation - Driver, R/o Village Vishunpur, P.S. Nagar Atari, District Gadhwar (Jharkhand), Hall Mukam - Village Ajirma, P.S. Jaynagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 1), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Anad Singh S/o Fulendra Pratap Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 2), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 9 - Shivpratap Singh S/o Kuber Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Govindpur, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 4), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Vinay Kumar Jaiswal S/o Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 35 Years R/o Prem Nagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 5), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate on behalf of Mr. 3 Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents :- None. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 03.12.2025 1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company against the award dated 12.04.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.181/2016, awarding total compensation of Rs.13,45,150/- with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of application till realization while fastening liability on the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 2. As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 23.02.2016 at about 1:00 p.m., the deceased Ravi Singh, who was working as a khalasi in the trailer bearing registration No. CG-07-C-7804, was travelling to Margaon Coal Mines for loading coal. On the way, near village Khorkhoripara, respondent No. 7, while driving the truck bearing registration No. CG-15-AC-9648 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), rashly and negligently came from the opposite direction and hit the trailer. As a result of the accident, Ravi Singh sustained serious injuries and died during treatment. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2, driven by non-applicant No. 1 and insured with non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 4 3. For the death of Ravi Singh, his parents, wife, and children filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 49,50,000/- under various heads, the Tribunal after considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal challenging the liability fastened upon it on the ground that the vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. It is further submitted that the driving licence which has been produced and exhibited during the proceedings was fake, and therefore, the liability could not have been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 5. None for the respondents as well as the claimants. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the record. 7. Upon perusal of the record, the evidence adduced by the parties, and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal, this Court finds that the Insurance Company has utterly failed to substantiate its contention regarding the alleged fake driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 8. The Tribunal, in paragraph 15 of the award, has specifically recorded a clear finding that, insofar as the alleged breach of policy 5 conditions and the allegation of a fake driving licence are concerned, the Insurance Company did not produce any evidence whatsoever. No witness from the concerned Licensing Authority was examined, nor was any verification report or documentary proof filed to demonstrate that the driving licence was forged, invalid, or ineffective on the date of the accident. A mere allegation, unsupported by any admissible evidence, cannot be accepted as proof of breach. 9. It is a well-settled principle of law that once the insurer alleges breach of policy conditions, the burden lies entirely upon the insurer to prove such breach. In the present case, the appellant–Insurance Company has not discharged this burden. The findings of the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and suffer from no perversity or illegality. 10. In view of the failure of the Insurance Company to prove its defence, the Tribunal has rightly fastened liability upon the insurer to satisfy the award. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the Tribunal. Thus, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha