1 2025:CGHC:30751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 174 of 2017 1 - Tata A. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Sr. Divisional Manager, Office- 403, 04 Floor, D.B.City Corporate Park, Plot No.1, Block No.9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.04-C X-6633, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Arun Kumar Agrawal S/o Jagdish Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 53 Years R/o Goyal Traders, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Claimant, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dilip Kumar Nishad S/o Late Ram Nishad, Aged About 39 Years R/o Shri Rakesh Nishad, Kiran Kirana Stores, Raja Talab, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.04-C X-6633, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - M/s Goyal Energy And Steel Pvt. Ltd. Through- Director, Address- Tatibandh Chawck, Ring Road, No.2, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.04-C X-6633, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/insurer : Shri Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Shri N.K. Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.1/claimant : Shri Anil Tawadkar, Advocate on behalf of Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.08.06 10:54:00 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/07/2025 1. This is an appeal by the insurer of the o昀昀ending vehicle against the award dated 5.1.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.78 of 2015, whereby the Claims Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.32,11,624 in favour of the claimant fastening liability upon the driver, owner and insurer of the o昀昀ending vehicle jointly and severally to satisfy the award. 2. Case, in short, is that on 28.12.2013 the claimant was going from Raipur to Umerkhed (Maharashtra) in a Hyundai Verna Car bearing registration No.CG 04 CX 6633 which was being driven by respondent No.2. On 29.12.2013 at about 4 a.m., the car lost its control and met with an accident in which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. During treatment, his right leg was cut till above the knee and thus he su昀昀ered disability. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the Claims Tribunal has decided the matter against the pleading of respondent No.1/claimant. As per the pleading of the claimant, he was travelling in the o昀昀ending car and was going for his business and he has also admitted this fact in his cross examination. But, the Tribunal has held that the o昀昀ending car was being used for the purpose of the owner of the car. The 3 昀椀nding of the Tribunal as mentioned in para 15 of its award is erroneous. The Tribunal has observed that the claimant was an employee of respondent No.3/owner of the o昀昀ending car, but, risk of such type of employee was not covered under the insurance policy. Moreover, the Tribunal has held that respondent No.1/claimant is not a third party. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant/insurer from payment of the compensation. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant submits that the Tribunal has rightly considered this fact that the o昀昀ending vehicle was not being used as a taxi. It belongs to the company and the claimant was travelling in the o昀昀ending vehicle as occupant not as a passenger and due to the said accident there was amputation in his leg which is permanent disability. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. Tribunal while considering the issue in respect of liability has considered the objections raised by the insurance company in a detailed manner in paragraph 15 of the award and it has categorically held that the vehicle in question was not being used as a taxi. So far as other grounds raised in respect of breach of insurance policy is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the aforesaid aspect that the driver of the o昀昀ending vehicle was not having valid licence which the 4 Tribunal has also considered and as held that the licence was produced as Ex.D1 and the photo copy of the same was exhibited vide Ex.D1C. From perusal of the aforesaid document, it has been held that it was valid till 18.2.2015 and for rebutting, the insurance company has not called any witness from the concerned RTO, as such the validity of licence cannot be questioned. The said 昀椀ndings arrived by the Tribunal are in consonance with the evidence documentary as well as oral, as such this Court does not 昀椀nd any illegality or perversity while interfering in the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh