1 2025:CGHC:51761 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2255 of 2019  Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited At Paras Complex, Opp. State Bank, Near Gurudwara, Station Road, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1. Devendra Kumar @ Jeetu Baghel S/o Ghanaram Baghel Aged About 37 Years R/o Village And Post Office Medesara, Police Station Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Clainant), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Vishram Sahu S/o Late Pancharam Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Sikola Basti, Jayanti Nagar, Ward No. 16, Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Basant Kumar Sahu S/o Keju Ram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Dhamdha Naba, Durg, Santoshi Mandir Ke Paas, Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 2297 of 2019  Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. At Paras Complex, Opp. State Bank, Near Gurudwara, Station Road, Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh, Its T. P. Hub Incharge, T. P. Hub Office, Iind Floor, Gurukripa Towers, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Rameshwari Yadav Wd/o Late Dileshwar Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post Medesara, Police Station Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Rupendra Yadav S/o Late Shri Dileshwar Yadav Aged About 18 Years R/o Village And Post Medesara, Police Station Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Kumari Rupa Yadav D/o Late Shri Dileshwar Yadav Aged About 14 Years The Respondent No. 03, Is Minor And Are Represented Through Their SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.17 18:18:45 +0530 2 Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Rameshwari Yadav, Respondent No. 01, R/o Village And Post Medesara, Police Station Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Khileshwar Yadav S/o Late Shri Dileshwar Yadav Aged About 11 Years The Respondent No. 04, Is Minor And Are Represented Through Their Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Rameshwari Yadav, Respondent No. 01, R/o Village And Post Medesara, Police Station Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh.........No. 01 To 04 Are Claimants,, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5. Vishram Sahu S/o Late Panchram Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Sikola Basti, Jayanti Nagar, Ward No. 16, Durg Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh.........Driver, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6. Basant Kumar Sahu S/o Keju Ram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Dhamdha Naba, Durg, Santoshi Mandir Ke Paas Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh ...........Owner, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant/Insurance : Mr. Aakash Shrivastava and Mr. Bennoon, Insurance company Advocates holding the brief of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate Driver and owner of the offending vehicle Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.10 .2025 1. The appellant/Insurance company has filed MAC No. 2255 of 2019 wherein award passed in Claim Case No. 200/2018 by the learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg dated 14.08.2019 has been challenged and in MAC No. 2297 of 2019 award passed in Claim Case No. 199/2018 by learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg dated 14.08.2019 has been challenged. 2. The facts of the present case are that on 03.01.2018, the driver of the offending Truck bearing registration No. CG 04 B 5125 dashed the Tractor, which was being driven by Gend Lal Joshi. In said accident, Dileshwar Yadav sustained injuries and died on the spot, whereas Devendra Kumar @ Jeetu Baghel sustained grievous injuries. 3 3. Claim Case No.199/2018 was filed by the widow and children of Dileshwar Yadav under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,96,000/-. The injured Devendra Kumar @ Jeetu Baghel filed Claim Case No. 200/2018 under Section 166 claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,74,000/-. 4. In the death case, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,82,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% whereas, in the injury case, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 54,589/- with interest at the rate of 9%. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company would submit that the offending Truck was being plied in absence of valid fitness certificate. He would further submit that there was breach of conditions of Insurance policy as on the date of accident, there was no valid fitness certificate with offending vehicle and the learned Tribunal has recorded specific finding with regard to fitness at para 18. He would contend that as there was no valid fitness certificate, liability cannot be fastened with the Insurance company. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Adesh Kumar vs. Satarupa Bai Yadav passed in MAC No. 1289 of 2014 and MAC No. 1117 of 2015 . He would pray to allow both the appeals. 6. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has considered the material available on record and thereafter, fastened liability with the Insurance company. He would further submit that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving licence. He would also submit that burden was on the Insurance company to prove the fact that the offending vehicle was plied in absence of valid fitness certificate but the Insurance company failed to discharge its burden. He would contend that the valid 4 permit is not a pre-requisite for grant of permit or Insurance policy as same is not mentioned under the provisions of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act. He would further contend that both the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The learned Tribunal has recorded specific finding that the vehicle was being plied in absence of fitness certificate, but the learned Tribunal fastened liability with the Insurance company on the ground that according to provisions of Section 149 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, fitness is not a pre- requisite for issuance of Insurance policy. 9. The Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Adesh Kumar (supra) while dealing with the same issue in para 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 held as under :- “17. Requirement of certificate of fitness is envisaged under Section 56 of the Act of 1988. Section 56 (1) is reproduced below for ready reference :- “Subject to the provisions of sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorized testing station mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder: Provided that where the prescribed authority or the “authorized testing station” refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal.” 18. Perusal of above provision would show that unless and until there is valid certificate of fitness, transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered. Requirement of certificate of fitness is mandatory and fundamental for its registration. Section 39 of the Act of 1988 envisages for registration of vehicle, which reads as under :- 5 “39. Necessity for registration. —No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 19. It prescribes that no person shall drive any motor vehicle in public or other places unless vehicle is registered. Conjoint reading of provisions of Section 39 and 56 of the Act of 1988 makes it clear that if the transport vehicle is plied on public road or any place without certificate of fitness will be in breach of policy condition and such breach will be a fundamental breach. 20. This issue has been considered by the five judges Bench of Kerala High Court in case of Pareed Pillai vs. Oriental Insurance Company Co. Ltd reported in AIR 2019 Kerala 9 and held thus :- “17. The stipulations under the above provisions clearly substantiate the importance and necessity to have a valid Fitness Certificate to the transport vehicle at all times. The above prescription converges on the point that Certificate of Registration, existence of valid Permit and availability of Fitness Certificate, all throughout, are closely interlinked in the case of a transport vehicle and one requirement cannot be segregated from the other. The transport vehicle should be completely fit and road worthy, to be plied on the road, which otherwise may cause threat to the lives and limbs of passengers and the general public, apart from damage to property. Only if the transport vehicle is having valid Fitness Certificate, would the necessary Permit be issued in terms of Section 66 of the Act and by virtue of the mandate under Section 56 of the Act, no transport vehicle without Fitness Certificate will be deemed as a validly registered vehicle for the purpose of Section 39 of the Act, which stipulates that nobody shall drive or cause the motor vehicle to be driven 6 without valid registration in public place or such other place, as the case may be. These requirements are quite 'fundamental' in nature; unlike a case where a transport vehicle carrying more passengers than the permitted capacity or a goods carriage carrying excess quantity of goods than the permitted extent or a case where a transport vehicle was plying through a deviated route than the one shown in the route permit which instances could rather be branded as 'technical violations'. In other words, when a transport vehicle is not having a Fitness Certificate, it will be deemed as having no Certificate of Registration and when such vehicle is not having Permit or Fitness Certificate, nobody can drive such vehicle and no owner can permit the use of any such vehicle compromising with the lives, limbs, properties of the passengers/general public. Obviously, since the safety of passengers and general public was of serious concern and consideration for the law makers, appropriate and adequate measures were taken by incorporating relevant provisions in the Statute, also pointing out the circumstances which would constitute offence; providing adequate penalty. This being the position, such lapse, if any, can only be regarded as a fundamental breach and not a technical breach and any interpretation to the contrary, will only negate the intention of the law makers.” 21. In view of very specific aforementioned provisions of the Act of 1988 and the ruling of Kerala High Court authored by one of us Hon'ble Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon, we hold that, absence of fitness certificate for the offending vehicle is fundamental breach of policy condition.” 10. Taking into consideration the foregoing reasons and law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Adesh Kumar (supra), the Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability on the ground that on the date of the accident, there was no valid fitness certificate with the offending vehicle, but the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and the driver of the offending vehicle was 7 having a valid driving licence; therefore, the Insurance Company shall indemnify the award and would be at liberty to recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. 11. Consequently, both the appeals are hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant