1 2025:CGHC:60379 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 190 of 2017 1 - Ghanshyam Patel S/o Kunjram Patel, Aged About 55 Years Proprietor- M/s Tarun Stone Chips, C/o Tarun Tractor Bypass Road, Dhimrapur, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Mob.No. 9329618394 ..............Non-Applicant No.2/ Owner, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Meera Singh W/o Late Pawan Singh, Aged About 25 Years Occupation- Housewife, R/o Village Labhri, Tahsil Navinagar, District Aurangabad Bihar At Present R/o Village Timarlaga, P.S. And Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimant No.1, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Ku. Shweta Singh D/o Late Pawan Singh, Aged About 5 Years Thorugh Natural Guardian Her Mother Smt. Meera Singh, W/o Late Pawan Singh, Permanent R/o Village Labhri, Tahsil Navinagar, District Aurangabad Bihar Presently R/o Village Timarlaga, P.S. And Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimant No.2, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Mayank Singh S/o Late Pawan Singh, Aged About 2 Years Through Natural Guardian His Mother Smt. Meera Singh, W/o Late Pawan Singh, Permanent R/o Village Labhri, Tahsil Navinagar, District Aurangabad Bihar Presently R/o Village Timarlaga, P.S. Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimant No.3, ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Minor Gunjan Singh D/o Late Pawan Singh, Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Her Mother Smt. Meera Singh, W/o Late Pawan Singh, Permanent R/o Village Labhri, Tahsil Navinagar, District Aurangabad Bihar Presently R/o Village Timarlaga, P.S. And Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimant No.4, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Devmati Devi Singh W/o Avdhesh Singh, Aged About 61 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Labhri, Tahsil Navi Nagar, District Aurangabad Bihar ................Claimant No.5, District : Aurangabad, Bihar 6 - Avdhesh Singh S/o Late Balkeshwar Singh @ Balasingh, Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Labhri, Tahsil Navi Nagar, District Aurangabad Bihar ................Claimant No.6, District : Aurangabad, Bihar 7 - Kunal Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 35 Years Permanent R/o Kurmipur, District Palamu Jharkhand, Presently R/o Tarun Stone Chips, Tarun Tractor Bypass Road, Dhimrapur, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...............Non-Applicant No.1/ Driver, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 8 - The Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- 2nd Floor, Sunaliya Building, Satigudi Chowk, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...............Non-Applicant No.3/ Insurance Company, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11.12.2025 3 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the award dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sarangarh District Raigarh C. G. in Claim Case No. 33 of 2015. 2. Facts of the case :- On 10.06.2016 at around 8:03 a.m., the deceased Pawan Kumar Singh, who was present at SR Petrol Pump, Timarlaga, and standing near the roadside to fill water in a bottle, was allegedly hit by the offending vehicle driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 7, resulting in his death on the spot. Police Station Sarangarh registered FIR No. 240/2015 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against respondent No. 7, who thereafter absconded; however, the police filed a charge-sheet against him under Section 304 IPC and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming that the deceased, aged about 30 years, was a driver earning Rs. 10,000 per month and sought compensation of Rs. 55,25,000/-. The appellant and respondent No. 7 filed a written statement denying the manner of the accident, the income of the deceased, and other allegations, asserting instead that the deceased had died due to his own negligence when he suddenly stopped his vehicle, attempted to alight, slipped, fell, and sustained fatal injuries, and further contended that the vehicle was duly insured and any liability, if established, was on the insurer. Respondent No. 8/Insurance 4 Company also filed a written statement denying liability and alleging breach of policy conditions by the appellant and respondent No. 7. During the proceedings, the claimants examined AW-1 Meera Kunwar and AW-2 Prem Prakash Singh, and respondent No. 8 moved an application under Order XI Rule 16 CPC seeking production of the vehicle permit, fitness certificate, tax receipts, pollution certificate, and the driver’s licence; the appellant replied that all documents except the driver’s licence had been supplied, that the xerox copy of the licence was misplaced, and that respondent No. 7, being absconding, could not provide the same. On 27.09.2016, the Tribunal allowed the application, noting that although the licence had been seized during investigation, the charge-sheet included Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and directed production of the licence; however, as respondent No. 7 remained absconding, the appellant could not produce it. Ultimately, by award dated 21.10.2016, the Tribunal held that the accident involved the offending vehicle, that respondent No. 7 did not possess a valid driving licence in violation of policy conditions, assessed compensation at Rs. 5,79,000/- in favour of the claimants, and fastened joint and several liability on the appellant and respondent No. 7, while exonerating respondent No. 8/Insurance Company, which the appellant contends to be erroneous. 5 3. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, held that the accident involved the offending vehicle, that respondent No. 7 did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, and therefore violated insurance policy conditions. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,79,000/- to the claimants, holding the appellant and respondent No. 7 jointly and severally liable, while exonerating the insurer, respondent No. 8. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 33/2015 suffers from perversity and is liable to be set aside, as the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the appellant could not produce the driving licence of respondent No. 7 solely because respondent No. 7 had absconded, and despite his absence the police filed a charge-sheet invoking Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act; the Tribunal further overlooked the fact that although the police had seized the licence after the incident, the original licence was never produced or taken into custody, and also erred in accepting the objections of respondent No. 8 despite the insurer having examined no witnesses to substantiate its defence. It is urged that, at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 8, who has been wrongly exonerated from liability, and that the appellant had engaged respondent No. 7 as driver only after 6 being shown a valid driving licence. The appellant has already deposited the mandatory amount of Rs. 25,000/- before the Claims Tribunal, as evidenced by Annexure A-2. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside or suitably modify the impugned award, exonerate the appellant from liability, and fasten the responsibility to pay compensation upon respondent No. 8/Insurance Company in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Upon careful consideration of the record, evidence, and submissions, it is observed that the Tribunal correctly noted that respondent No. 7 was driving without a valid licence at the time of the accident, and that mere engagement of a driver based on a previously shown licence does not absolve the owner of the vehicle from liability under the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant, as the owner, is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle is driven by a legally competent driver, and the fact that respondent No. 7 absconded does not relieve the appellant of liability for the accident caused by the offending vehicle. Further, the insurance company, respondent No. 8, was rightly exonerated by the Tribunal because the driver’s lack of a valid licence at the time of the accident constituted a clear breach of policy conditions. 7 7. In view of the above, the appeal lacks merit. There is no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned findings of the Claims Tribunal. 8. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The award dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 33 of 2015 is affirmed. The appellant shall comply with the directions of the Tribunal regarding payment of compensation, if any part remains unpaid. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena