1 2025:CGHC:56374 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on : 06.11.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 19.11.2025 MAC No. 816 of 2018 The National Insurance Company Limited Ahead Lal Ganga Shoping Complex G.E.Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Authorised Signatory For The National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office B-1 Taha Complex First Floor Ring Road Priyadarshaniya Nagar Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Motim Bai Wd/o Late Bhuneswar Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Mujgahan Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Devarin Bai Wd/o Khemraj Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Mujgahan Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - (Minor) Ku. Yamuna Sahu D/o Late Khemraj Sahu Aged About 17 Years Through Guardian Natural Mother Devarin Bai Wd/o Khemraj Sahu, R/o Village Mujgahan Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Durga Das Parwar Alias Anil Parwar S/o K.D.Parvar Aged About 33 Years R/o Parsvada District Balaghat P.S. Gadhi District Balaghat (M.P.) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.19 19:11:05 +0530 2 5 - Teja Singh S/o Janrail Singh C/o Gurprit Singh S/o Tej Singh R/o Tatibandh Raipur P.S. Aamanaka Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge C A V Judgment 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 31.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.03/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants, awarded Rs.10,01,024/- as compensation and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company. 2. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that on 09.10.2015 at about 4.30 pm, Bhuneshwar Sahu was proceeding on his bicycle from his native village Mujgahan to purchase household goods. He was accompanied by Kirtan Sahu of village Andhi, who was undergoing treatment at the Government Hospital. As Bhuneshwar was slowly heading towards the Dhamtari market, 3 another villager, Manharan Sahu, had also gone to the market on his bicycle and had stopped near Ghadi Chowk due to the signal being off. At about 5.30 pm, non-applicant No. 1, while driving Truck bearing registration No. MP-09-HF-0607 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) from Jagdalpur to Raipur in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Bhuneshwar’s bicycle from behind with great force. Due to the impact, Bhuneshwar was thrown aside and the truck ran over his chest, causing his instantaneous death. On receiving the information from the eyewitnesses, Police Station Dhamtari registered a crime against non-applicant No. 1 under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, (‘IPC’). 3. The claimants have filed claim application before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 21 years, earning Rs. 6,000/- per month from the grocery shop, grain business, and agricultural centre owned by Akturam Sahu of village Mujgahan. He used to hand over his entire income to claimant No. 1, his wife, which formed the sole means of livelihood for the applicants. Due to his untimely death, the claimants have been deprived of this income and have sought compensation under various heads. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2, in their joint written statement, have denied all the averments of the claim application and have specifically pleaded that the accident occurred due to the 4 negligence of the deceased himself, who allegedly collided with the vehicle while riding his bicycle carelessly. They have further stated that non-applicant No. 1 possessed a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle was duly insured with non- applicant No. 3 on the date of the accident and they have lastly contended that if any liability is found, the same is to be indemnified by non-applicant No. 3. 5. Non-applicant No. 3 insurance company, in its separate reply, has also denied the claimants’ pleadings and has taken the defence that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased. It has further been alleged that non-applicant No. 1 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the incident, thereby constituting a breach of policy conditions by non- applicants No. 1 and 2. Hence, the insurer has pleaded that it is not liable to indemnify and that the entire liability, if any, shall be borne by non-applicants No. 1 and 2. 6. On appreciation of the pleadings as well as the oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,01,024/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application and fastened the liability to satisfy the award upon the insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. the appellant herein. 5 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon the insurer despite clear pleadings and evidence indicating breach of the policy conditions. It is urged that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms of the insurance policy, as the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to operate the category of vehicle involved in the accident. It is contended that once the insurer specifically pleaded the defence under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and produced material to show that the driver was not duly licensed, the burden shifted upon the owner and driver to establish the validity of the licence, which they failed to discharge. He argued that the Claims Tribunal committed a manifest error in holding that the insurer had failed to prove the breach. According to the appellant/insurance company, the finding recorded in paragraph 13 of the award is perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the Claims Tribunal overlooked the settled legal position that in cases of breach of fundamental policy conditions such as absence of a valid licence, the insurer cannot be made liable to indemnify the compensation. Therefore, the appellant/insurance company cannot be saddled with liability and the impugned award deserves to be set aside to the extent it fastens liability upon the appellant/insurance company. 6 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 and 3 submits that the appellant/insurance company has utterly failed to prove the alleged breach of policy conditions. It is argued that the insurer neither produced any cogent evidence nor examined any competent witness to establish that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. The Tribunal, after due appreciation of the entire material on record, has rightly recorded a finding in paragraph 13 of the award that the insurer failed to discharge its burden. It is further submitted that in absence of proof of breach, the insurer cannot escape liability, and therefore, the award fastening liability upon the Insurance Company warrants no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the record of the claim cases carefully with utmost circumspection. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal, while deciding Issue No. 3 regarding breach of policy conditions, has observed that the insurance company (non-applicant No. 3) alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. However, non-applicants No. 1 and 2 produced the vehicle documents and a photocopy of the driving licence, and non-applicant No. 2 specifically pleaded that non-applicant No. 1 was appointed as driver only after due verification of his licence and driving capability, which remained unrefuted. 7 11. The Claims Tribunal noted that the insurance company had relied upon the testimony of Insurance Officer Madhusudan Kesharwani (NAW-1), who produced information obtained under the RTI Act from the District Transport Officer, Balaghat (Ex.D-1), stating that licence No. NP-50 R 2012-0006080 was issued in the name of one Durga Prasad and not in the name of non-applicant No. 1. However, in his cross-examination, NAW-1 admitted that the photocopy of the licence belonging to non-applicant No. 1 had been sent to the investigator and that the licence in question was shown to have been issued by the Transport Office, Mandla. He further admitted that although Ex.D-2 was a document from the DTO, Balaghat, no verification was carried out from the District Transport Office, Mandla, from where the licence purportedly originated. He also conceded that investigators generally obtain verification from the RTO which issued the licence. 12. The Claims Tribunal further considered the evidence of Tulsidas Derha, witness from Balaghat RTO, who accepted that Ex.D-2 had been issued from his office and explained that Balaghat district uses code MP-50, whereas Mandla district uses code MP- 51. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not brought the relevant records, that Mandla and Balaghat are different districts, and that he was unable to confirm whether the licence was issued by RTO Mandla. The Tribunal observed that the photocopy of the licence on record bears code MP-51 and the seal of RTO Mandla. Despite this, non-applicant No. 3 failed to 8 obtain verification from RTO Mandla, the authority shown on the licence. 13. Relying on the precedent in United India Insurance Co. v. Prabhachand and Others, 2015 (1) CGLJ 62, the Claims Tribunal held that when the owner has verified the licence and tested the driving skills before appointment, negligence cannot be attributed to the owner, and the burden lies upon the insurer to prove breach. In the present case, non-applicant No. 3 failed to establish negligence on the part of non-applicant No. 2 and also failed to verify the licence from the Mandla RTO despite the licence bearing its seal and code MP-51. In these circumstances, the Claims Tribunal concluded that the insurance company had not proved that non-applicant No. 1 was driving without a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. 14. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the submissions advanced by both sides and a careful scrutiny of the material placed on record, it transpires that the principal ground urged by the appellant pertains to the alleged breach of policy conditions on the premise that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. However, as rightly appreciated by the learned Claims Tribunal while deciding Issue No. 3, the insurer has failed to discharge the burden of proving such breach. 9 15. The evidence adduced by the insurance company, particularly the testimony of NAW-1 and the documents marked as Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2, does not inspire confidence. On the contrary, the cross- examination of NAW-1 and the admissions elicited therein clearly demonstrate that the investigation was incomplete and verification was not carried out from the proper licensing authority, namely the RTO Mandla, whose code and seal are clearly reflected in the photocopy of the licence produced by the owner. The Tribunal has further noted that the owner had verified the licence and driving capability of non-applicant No. 1 at the time of employment, and this fact remains uncontroverted. In these circumstances, the insurer has failed to establish that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence or that there was any conscious breach on the part of the owner. 16. In view of the categorical findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in paragraph 13 of the award and the absence of any material to counter or dislodge the same, this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or error warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. The plea of breach raised by the insurance company is thus liable to be rejected. 17. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company stands dismissed. 18. Since, this is an admitted position that the insurance company has failed to prove the fact of breach of policy conditions, as such, the 10 appellant/insurance company is directed to satisfy the entire awarded amount of compensation within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 06.11.2025 19.11.2025 --- 19.11.2025