-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2036 of 2024 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, City And P.S. Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Keyur Bhushan Sharma S/o Ramswaroop Sharma, Aged About 56 Years R/o Bhumiya, Ward No. 04, P.S. Town And Tahsil Tilda Nevra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Vikram Sharma S/o Keyur Bhushan Sharma, Aged About 29 Years R/o Bhumiya, Ward No. 04, P.S. Town And Tahsil Tilda Nevra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 3 - Vaibhavi Sharma D/o Keyur Bhushan Sharma, Aged About 27 Years R/o Bhumiya, Ward No. 04, P.S. Town And Tahsil Tilda Nevra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 4 - Ravishankar Tandon S/o Umend Das Tandon Aged About 30 Years R/o Sendri, Mahaveer Ward, P.S. Bhathapara Rural, Tahsil Bhathapara, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Cum Driver) ... Respondents For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. Ashuthosh Rathore, Advocate For respondents/claimants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate for respondent No.4/driver and owner: None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.12.2025 1) Heard. 2) The appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award dated 29.07.2024 passed by learned Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.16/2023, whereby -2- learned Claims Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.9,20,040/- with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 on account of death of Vidya Sharma. 3) The facts in brief are that on 16.11.2022, when the deceased Vidya Sharma along with his wife were crossing the road on a Vespa Scooter bearing registeration No.C.G.04-MW-5478, the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.04-NV-1303 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the deceased, resultantly, he sustained injuries and during course of treatment died. 4) The wife of the deceased filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed a sum of Rs.38,50,000/-. The Insurance Company filed reply and denied averments made in the claim petition. Learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter, impugned award was passed. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is factually and legally erroneous, being contrary to the evidence on record and bad in law. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence, including the testimony of the investigating officer and the legal officer, as well as the charge-sheet incorporating Sections 3, 181, and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He would contend that the learned Tribunal erred in disregarding that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence as mandated under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which prohibits driving without -3- a valid license. Moreover, the owner-driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, constituting a penal offense under Section 185 and a fundamental breach of the insurance policy conditions. Despite these violations, the Tribunal wrongly directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation and recover it from the owner- driver, thereby imposing liability on the insurer despite the deliberate breach of policy terms by the insured. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law while fastening liability with the Insurance Company. He would pray to set aside the award. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents/claimants would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Rathore. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and the Insurance Company failed to adduce evidence before the learned Tribunal in this regard. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8) A perusal of the award passed by the learned Tribunal would show that the learned Tribunal held driver cum owner solely liable for the accident and noted that the vehicle was driven in violation of the terms of insurance policy. Further, learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,20,040/- to the claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount first and recover the same from driver-cum-owner. 9) Since liability has been fastened with the owner-driver of the offending -4- vehicle, and the insurance company has been directed to pay the awarded amount and subsequently recover the same from the owner- driver, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 10) Considering the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha