1 2025:CGHC:54509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1081 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Korba, Behind Natraj Hotel, Transport Nagar, Korba (Chhattisgarh) Through Branch Manager, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road-3, Pandari, Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Soniya Bai Jatwar W/o Late Dharmendra Jatwar Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Dadar Khurd, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Yaman Jatwar S/o Late Dharmendra Jatwar Age 07 Months. Minor Through Natural Guardian Soniya Bai Jatwar, R/o Village Dadar Khurd, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Shyam Bai W/o Late Natthuram Jatwar Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Dadar Khurd, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Anil Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Chandan Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Katbitla P.S. Urga, Post Sargbundiya, Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Vijay Kumar S/o Bhagwandin Prajapati R/o Ward No. 07 Sitamadi, Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Korba Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D. L. Dewangan For Claimant(s) : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 11.01.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No.19/2016 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.18,87,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants and against the Insurance Company. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on 31.01.2016 at about 9:00 p.m., the deceased was riding a motorcycle along with another person on Manikpur Road, Baigabadi Dadar, when a tractor bearing registration No. CG 12F 1526, attached to a trolley bearing registration No. CG 12F 1527, driven rashly and negligently, hit their motorcycle from behind. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same during treatment on 01.02.2016 at around 3 3:00 p.m. The deceased, aged about 24 years, was earning approximately ₹12,000 per month, and the claimants, being his dependents, sought compensation of ₹1,30,00,000/- under various heads. Respondents No. 1 and 2, being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, filed a joint reply denying all adverse allegations. The Tribunal granted permission under Section 170 of the Act to the insurer on 13.02.2017. The present appellant–insurance company filed its written statement contending that only the tractor bearing registration No. CG 12F 1526 was insured with it, while the attached trolley bearing registration No. CG 12F 1527 was insured with another insurer, and therefore, the appellant could not be held solely liable for the composite vehicle. It was further pleaded that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, and the owner permitted him to drive in violation of the policy conditions. The appellant also contended that the vehicle lacked a valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of the incident and that the driver, owner, and insurer of the motorcycle ridden by the deceased were not made parties to the proceedings. However, the learned Tribunal, without properly appreciating the facts, evidence, and policy conditions, held the appellant liable to pay compensation, leading to the filing of the present appeal. 3. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal held the Insurance Company liable and fastened the primary liability of 4 payment of compensation upon the Insurance company, against which, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company for exoneration from liability. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company respectfully submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous both on facts and in law and suffers from serious legal infirmities. The learned Tribunal has committed a grave illegality in fastening the entire liability upon the appellant, despite the fact that the appellant had insured only the tractor bearing registration No. CG 12F 1526 and not the trolley bearing registration No. CG 12F 1527. Since the tractor and trolley were being jointly operated at the time of the accident, the appellant cannot be held solely liable for payment of compensation. The Tribunal further failed to appreciate that the owner, driver, and insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling were not impleaded as necessary parties to the proceedings, rendering the claim petition defective for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further submitted that the deceased contributed to the occurrence by his own negligence, and even assuming contributory negligence, the appellant cannot be saddled with the entire liability. Moreover, the FIR was initially lodged against an unknown vehicle, and the co-rider, Priyansh, neither disclosed the registration number nor identified the driver, nor did he appear before the Tribunal, thereby rendering the alleged involvement of 5 the tractor and trolley highly doubtful. The Tribunal erred in holding the driver of vehicle Nos. CG 12F 1526 and CG 12F 1527 negligent merely on the basis of the final report and the testimony of PW-2 Umendram, who was admittedly not an eyewitness and whose name does not appear in the criminal case documents, making his statement unreliable. It is also submitted that the tractor and trolley were insured as commercial vehicles (other than for agricultural purposes) and thus fall under the category of transport vehicles; hence, the driver, who possessed a licence only to drive LMV, was not authorized to drive the said vehicle, amounting to a clear breach of policy conditions. The Tribunal further erred in granting 50% addition towards future prospects, which is excessive and contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Others, and also in awarding ₹3,75,000 under conventional heads, far exceeding the permissible limits under settled legal principles. Therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is excessive, perverse, and unsustainable in law, and deserves to be set aside or suitably modified in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the offending vehicle was being driven strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are well-reasoned and based on 6 proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. It is further submitted that there was no specific endorsement on the driving licence showing authorization to drive a transport vehicle; however, in view of the settled position of law, such absence of endorsement, by itself, does not exonerate the insurer of its statutory liability towards third-party compensation. 6. There is no representation made on behalf of driver and owner despite issuance of notice to them. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and claimants at length and carefully perused the material available on record, including, in particular, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 8. Having considered the submissions, it is evident that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts and law applicable to the case. Although the appellant contends that there was no valid and effective driving licence with the driver at the time of the accident, no cogent evidence has been brought on record to establish that the vehicle was being used in violation of the policy terms. Moreover, the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant at the relevant time, and the claimants, being third parties, cannot be deprived of just compensation merely on technical grounds. 9. Though the Insurance Company has raised an objection regarding the validity and effectiveness of the driving licence held by driver 7 of the offending vehicle, the said objection is devoid of merit. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited , 1 it has been clearly held that a person holding a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) is entitled to drive a transport vehicle, provided the unladen weight of such vehicle does not exceed 7,500 kg, and no separate endorsement for a transport vehicle is required in such cases. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision to the facts of the present case, the argument advanced by the Insurance Company regarding the validity and effectiveness of the driving licence stands rejected. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no substance in the contentions raised by the appellant– insurance company. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and the settled principles of law. Merely because there was no specific endorsement on the driving licence does not absolve the insurer of its liability to satisfy the award. Accordingly, no interference with the well-considered judgment and award of the learned Tribunal is warranted. 11. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant–insurance company stands dismissed. The award dated 11.01.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 19/2016 is hereby affirmed. The insurance 1 (2017) 14 SCC 663 8 company shall satisfy the award amount, if not already paid, together with interest as directed by the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of this judgment. No order as to costs. 12. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Certified Copy as per rules. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna