1 2025:CGHC:33986 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 343 of 2019 1 - The National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manger, branch Office, Korba ,13 Minu Complex Kosabadi Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh Pin No. 495677(Non Applicant No. 3) (Insurer Of Vehicle Trialer Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg 04/1346 ) --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Ganga Bai W/o Late Dev Singh Aged About 47 Years 2 - Rajjan Singh S/o Late Dev Singh Aged About 28 Years Both are R/o Village Koudiya, present R/o Kirari, near Bajrangbali, Chowk, Tahsil Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.(Applicant Claimants ) 3 - Shailesh Singh S/o Devshankar Singh R/o Main Raod Pali , Post Pali, Sub Tahsil Pali ,district Korba Chhattisgarh.(Non Applicant No.1) (Registered owner of vehicle tailer truck bearing registration No. Cg 04/jb/1346) 4 - S.M. Javed S/o S.M. Jaleel R/o House No. 166 Karimganj Gaya ,district Gaya (Bihar) (Non Applicant No. 2,) (Driver Of Vehicle Trailer Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg 04/jb/1346), District : Gaya, Bihar --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent No. 1& 2 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.05 10:44:29 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 18/07/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 31.10.2018, passed in Claim Case No.39 of 2011, whereby the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) has awarded compensation of Rs.7,12,900/- to the claimants in death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application was filed by the applicants/claimants claiming compensation of Rs.10,90,000/- against the death of Dev Singh who died in road accident. It was pleaded that on 01.04.2011 at 07:00 am, non- applicant No.2 while driving trailer truck number CG 04 / JB- 1346 at high speed, in rash and negligently manner crushed Dev Singh, due to which he suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. It was pleaded that claimants/applicant were dependent on the deceased Dev Singh. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 filed their reply denying the averments made in the claim application. Occurrence of accident from the offending vehicle was denied. It was pleaded that claim application is filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. It was further pleaded that, at the time of accident, non-applicant No.2 was holding valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3. Non-applicant No.3 filed reply to the application and denied the allegation made therein. It was pleaded that accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself. It was 3 further pleaded that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.2 was not holding valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy without any permit and fitness certificate. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,12,900/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to satisfy the amount of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously rejected the ground raised by appellant/Insurance Company that on the date of accident, Non- applicant No.2, driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving license. Insurance Company in support of plea taken in reply to the claim application, submitted the information supplied by the District Transport Officer, Gaya (Bihar) vide (Ex.D-3) mentioning therein that no record is available of license bearing No.A- 96917/BR 2006. Document (Ex.D-3) was proved by (NAW.-1) Ankit Agrawal, Administrative Officer of Insurance Company, but it was not considered by the learned Claims Tribunal on extraneous consideration. 6. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission made by learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company and supported the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that, document (Ex.D-3) was not proved by author of said documents, therefore, the 4 finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has raised ground for consideration of this Court that learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the documentary evidence (Ex.D-3) on extraneous consideration. Perusal of the pleadings made in the reply to the application would show that appellant/Insurance Company has raised the plea that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.2 driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving license. In support of the said pleadings, appellant/Insurance Company submitted photocopy of the license (Ex.D-3) with an endorsement that upon verification of particulars of license it revealed that it is not in the register, particular of license as mentioned is not in existence. 9. Perusal of the document (Ex.D-3) available on record would show that though there is some mention in the handwriting that records of the license No.A-96917/BR-2006 is not available. The seal of District Transport Officer is affixed, however, it was not issued under signature of District Transport Officer, but some short signature is made with date of 28.08.2011. There is no mention of designation or name of signatory of the said endorsement made in the photocopy of license. 10. It is settled law that when document is written or there is some endorsement on document by any person or officer, then it could have 5 been proved by the said person/author of the contents of the said documents. In the case at hand admittedly the Insurance Company has not examined the author of the endorsement made in the copy of license. It is not the case of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that attempt has been made to call the person or the District Transport Officer for his examination as witness and it was rejected or even after issuance of summons, the concerned authority/person failed to appear. One more important aspect with regard to document (Ex.D-3) that signature is not of the person whose seal is affixed but the small signature is made mentioning designation of the person or name of person, who put initial on the document (Ex.D-3) is not mentioned. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in disbelieving the document (Ex.D-3) on the ground that it was not proved in accordance with law. As the document (Ex.D-3) is produced by appellant/Insurance Company in support of its pleading, it was the bounden duty of the non-applicant/Insurance Company to prove the documents and the contents made therein in accordance with law, to which it utterly failed. 11. For the foregoing discussions I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The appeal being sans merit, is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram