1 2025:CGHC:54697 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2029 of 2018 The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- Rama Trade Center, 2nd Floor, Near Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Sahodara Bai Shrivas Wd/o Late Rameshwar @ Kallu Shrivas Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Janji, Police Station Sipat, Tahsil- Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Govind Shrivas S/o Late Rameshwar @ Kallu Shrivas Aged About 17 Years, minor Through Their Mother Smt. Sahodara Bai Shrivas, Wd/o Late Rameshwar @ Kallu Shrivas (Res. No.1), R/o Village Janji, Police Station Sipat, Tahsil- Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Gopal Shrivas S/o Late Rameshwar @ Kallu Shrivas Aged About 14 Years, minor Through Their Mother Smt. Sahodara Bai Shrivas, Wd/o Late Rameshwar @ Kallu Shrivas (Res. No.1), R/o Village Janji, Police Station Sipat, Tahsil- Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Neelam Shrivas D/o Late Rameshwar @ Kallu Shrivas Aged About 12 Years, minor Through Their Mother Smt. Sahodara Bai Shrivas, Wd/o Late Rameshwar @ Kallu Shrivas (Res. No.1), R/o Village Janji, Police Station Sipat, Tahsil- Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Lakshmi Kumar Sande S/o Sundarlal Sande Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Dhaniya, Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ram Bahoran Laskar S/o Heeralal Laskar R/o Village Hindadah, Post Office- Gudi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.11 18:50:26 +0530 2 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No.5 and 6 : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Utkal Pradhan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 10.11.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 24.08.2018, passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.739/2016, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim application of the claimants and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company. 2. The brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that on 18.07.2016, the deceased Rameshwar Shrivas was returning to his home from the bus stand Janji on his bicycle. At the bus stand itself, non- applicant No. 1, who was driving a trailer bearing registration No.CG-10-C-2592 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased along with his bicycle, resulting in his instantaneous death. In connection with the said accident, Crime No. 166/16 under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Seepat, and 3 upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent Court. 3. The claimants have filed the claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 40 years and ran a salon and also engaged in agricultural work, earning approximately Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants have been deprived of his financial support. They have claimed total compensation of Rs.14,50,000/- upon the non- applicants therein. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 remained ex parte, and no written statement was filed on their behalf. 5. Non-applicant No. 3 (Insurance Company) filed its reply denying the averments made in the claim petition and contending that non- applicant No. 1 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. It was further stated that non- applicant No. 2, the owner of the vehicle, did not intimate the insurance company regarding the accident, and that the relevant documents including the registration certificate, permit, fitness, insurance policy and driving licence were not duly verified. It was alleged that the vehicle was plied without a valid permit and fitness certificate, amounting to breach of policy conditions. Hence, non- applicant No. 3 asserted that it was not liable to indemnify the claim. 4 6. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, as well as oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,29,375/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle jointly and severally. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is bad in law and wholly unsustainable in the facts of the case. It is submitted that before the learned Claims Tribunal, the Insurance Company led cogent evidence to prove that the offending transport vehicle was being plied without a valid Fitness Certificate. Despite this clear evidence of breach, the learned Claims Tribunal erroneously fastened liability upon the appellant by holding that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in paragraph 13 of the impugned award is patently illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. The Insurance Company had conclusively established that the trailer in question, being a transport vehicle, was being operated without a valid Fitness Certificate in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as the conditions of the insurance policy. In spite of such fundamental breach, the Claims Tribunal wrongly 5 interpreted the law and saddled the Insurance Company with liability, which is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel submits that the Five Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Pareed Pillai v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ernakulam, AIR 2019 Kerala 9 (Full Bench), after considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 517 and Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2018) 7 SCC 558, has categorically held that absence of a Fitness Certificate for a transport vehicle amounts to a fundamental breach of a third-party insurance policy. It is submitted that the statutory scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act clearly underscores the importance of possessing a valid Fitness Certificate at all times. For a transport vehicle, the requirements of registration, permit and fitness are interdependent, and one cannot be segregated from the others. It is contended that a transport vehicle must be roadworthy and mechanically fit before it is allowed to operate on public roads. Plying such a vehicle without a valid Fitness Certificate poses a serious risk to life, limb and property. Such a lapse constitutes a fundamental breach of policy conditions and cannot be trivialized as a technical violation. 9. Learned counsel also submits that the legislative intent behind the Motor Vehicles Act is to ensure public safety. The absence of a 6 Fitness Certificate strikes at the very root of this statutory objective. Therefore, such breach must necessarily be treated as fundamental in nature. Any contrary interpretation would defeat the purpose of the law. It is further submitted that a transport vehicle without a Fitness Certificate is deemed to be a vehicle without a valid permit, and therefore, the consequences under Section 149(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 must follow. In the present case, the offending vehicle was admittedly being plied without a valid Fitness Certificate, amounting to a breach of the policy, and the appellant Insurance Company was entitled to invoke the statutory defences available under Section 149(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Lastly, it is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company from liability and dismissed the claim so far as it relates to fastening liability upon the appellant. As such, the appeal be allowed and Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liabiltiy to pay the amount of compensation. Reliance has been placed upon the Division Bench of this Court in MAC No.1289/2014 (Adesh Kumar and another v. Smt. Satarupa Bai Yadav and others) decided on 19.11.2020 to buttress his submissions. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation, which needs to be enhanced suitably. 7 11. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 and 6, who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle submits that the offending vehicle did, in fact, possess a valid Fitness Certificate immediately prior to and immediately after the date of the accident. It is submitted that due to an inadvertent lapse, there existed only a short gap of four days during which the renewed certificate was not formally in place. It is contended that such a minor and unintentional lapse cannot lead to the inference that on the precise date and time of the accident the vehicle was without a valid Fitness Certificate. Learned counsel submits that the Claims Tribunal, therefore, committed no error in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 13. The learned Claims Tribunal, while examining the issue with regard to breach of policy conditions, has observed in paragraphs 11 to 13 that the burden to establish breach squarely rested upon non-applicant No. 3. In this regard, non-applicant No. 3 examined Assistant Grade-II Umesh Tripathi (NAW-1) and V. Tirkey, Assistant Manager (NAW-2). NAW-2 V. Tirkey deposed that the offending vehicle bearing No. CG-10-C-2592 was insured with his office in the name of Rambahoran Laskar for the period from 28.06.2016 to midnight of 27.06.2017 under a Commercial Vehicle Package Policy, marked as Exhibit D-5. He further stated that, as 8 per the reports received from the RTO, Bilaspur through the Investigator, Shri D. R. Sande, marked as Exhibits D-1, D-3 and D- 4, the Fitness Certificate of the said vehicle was not valid and effective on the date of the accident i.e. 18.07.2016, and therefore the insurer was not liable to indemnify the award. 14. NAW-1 Umesh Tripathi supported the version of NAW-2 and stated that the RTO, Bilaspur had furnished the fitness-related documents of vehicle No. CG-10-C-2592 to the Investigator Shri D. R. Sande. Exhibit D-1 contains the RTO report and Exhibit D-2 relates to the registration particulars of the vehicle, while Exhibits D-3 and D-4 pertain to the forms connected with the Fitness Certificate. According to these documents, the Fitness Certificate of the offending vehicle was not valid and effective on the date of the accident. He further stated that a transport vehicle must possess a valid and effective Fitness Certificate for being lawfully plied on the road. 15. The Claims Tribunal, however, held that although NAW-1 and NAW-2 have stated that the trailer did not have a valid Fitness Certificate on the date of the incident, Exhibit D-5, the insurance policy produced by non-applicant No. 3, only requires that the vehicle possess a valid permit, and no specific objection or evidence was led by the insurer regarding absence of permit at the time of accident. The Tribunal further noted, from the First Information Report (Exhibit P-2) and the Final Report (Exhibit P-1), 9 that the police registered an offence only under Section 304A IPC against non-applicant No. 1, the driver, and no offence was registered alleging that the vehicle was being plied without a valid permit or Fitness Certificate. 16. In view of the above, the Claims Tribunal concluded that the insurer failed to prove that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy on the date of the accident. 17. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon a comprehensive re-appraisal of the evidence and material brought on record, it transpires that the learned Claims Tribunal has meticulously examined the evidence led by the appellant/Insurance Company and has rightly held that the alleged breach of policy conditions was not proved. The entire defence of the appellant rested on the assertion that the offending transport vehicle did not possess a valid Fitness Certificate on the date of the accident. However, the documents relied upon by the appellant, namely Exhibits D-1 to D-4, were not found sufficient to conclusively establish breach of statutory requirements or violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 18. The Claims Tribunal has further observed, and rightly so, that neither the First Information Report nor the Final Report contained any allegation suggesting that the offending vehicle was being plied without permit or Fitness Certificate. No independent 10 evidence was brought on record by the appellant to demonstrate that the absence of fitness was a proven fact or that such alleged lapse had any proximate nexus with the cause of the accident. In these circumstances, the finding of the Claims Tribunal that Issue No. 3 remained “not proved” does not call for any interference. 19. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the appellant/Insurance Company has failed to make out any ground warranting reversal or modification of the well-reasoned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The plea of fundamental breach raised by the appellant is devoid of merit and the reliance placed on judicial precedents is misplaced in the absence of cogent factual foundation. 20. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed. The award of the learned Claims Tribunal is affirmed in its entirety. 21. The record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh