1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 974 of 2016 Judgment Reserved on 04.12.2025 Judgment Delivered on 15.12.2025 • The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- Main Road Sadar Bazar, Jagdalpur, Zilla- Bastar, Chhattisgarh, ...Appellant versus 1. Kunjami Somaram, S/o Late Supa, aged about 40 Years, R/o- Bhanshi, Thana- Bhanshi, Zilla Dantewara, Chhattisgarh (Added By Order 25/- 6/2012). 2. Laxman, S/o Kunjami Ramu, aged about 10 Years, under the Guardianship of Kunjami Somaram, R/o- Ghurli, Permapara, Thana- Bhanshi, Tahsil And Zilla- Dantewara, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ramupal, S/o Anand Pal, aged about 29 Years, R/o- Gajpal Camp Kirandul, Thana- Kirandul, Zilla- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 4. K.A. Papachand, S/o K.V. Anthoni, R/o- 4 Number Ring Road, Kirandul, Thana- Kirandul, Zilla- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. H.P. Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents : None, though served. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal) CAV Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred by the insurer against the award dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 423/2014, AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.12.15 14:45:24 +0530 2 whereby a total compensation of Rs.3,00,600/- has been awarded to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realization and liability has been fastened upon the non- applicants jointly and severally. The Tribunal has further held that the primary liability to pay the compensation shall rest with the Appellant/Insurance Company. 2. As per claim petition, on 28.07.2005, deceased- Smt. Kamli @ Deve, aged about 35 years, earning Rs.2,100/- per month by working as labourer, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG18- ZC0298 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle') by non-applicant No.1/Ramupal, driver of the offending vehicle. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2- K.A. Papachand and insured with Appellant/Insurance Company (non- applicant No.3). 3. On a claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,88,400/-, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by both parties, passed the award as mentioned above and fixed the liability upon the Appellant/Insurance Company. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the insurer seeking exoneration. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously fastened liability upon the Insurance Company without properly appreciating the evidence on record. He would further submit that although the offending vehicle was insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company at the time of the accident, but the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as a 3 gratuitous passenger and, therefore, is not covered under the Insurance Policy. He would also submit that at the time of the accident, non-applicant No.1/ driver of the offending vehicle, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive a Heavy Goods Vehicle. Hence, it is prayed that the Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Balu Krishna Chavan vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2023 ACJ 1546. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 6. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Claims Tribunal was justified in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. 7. It is not disputed that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company. Although NAW-1 Prakash Kumar Gadekar, Administrative Officer, examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, has stated that the driving licence held by non-applicant No.1/driver was not issued in his name but in the name of one Shri Davis P.G., and that the particulars of the said licence are marked as Ex.D-1, however, the Insurance Company did not call for the original record from the RTO office nor did examine any witness from the RTO to prove the said particulars (Ex.D-1). On the contrary, NAW-2 Ramkaran Ratre, Assistant Grade-II, RTO Office, Jagdalpur (C.G.), has stated that the driving licence No. J39/BTR, which the driver possessed, had been issued on 13.09.1995 in favour of non- applicant No.1, authorising him to drive Light Motor Vehicles (LMV). He has further stated that in the endorsement column, only the letter “H” is 4 legible and the remaining portion is torn, however, the visible part along with the seal indicates that the endorsement pertaining to Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV). He has also stated that the licence appears to have been renewed for the period from 13.09.2001 to 12.09.2004, and that on 10.09.2004, a duplicate licence was issued for the period from 12.09.2004 to 11.09.2007. He has further stated that the photocopy of the driver’s licence (NA-5) filed in the present case matches the entries in the original register (NA-4). According to him, the licence entries clearly show that both LMV and HGV authorisations were issued in favour of non-applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle. In cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that the driver did not possess a valid HGV licence. 8. Thus, from the above evidence, it stands established that at the time of the accident, non-applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle held a valid and effective driving licence to drive the category of vehicle involved in the accident. Accordingly, the learned Claims Tribunal was justified in holding that non-applicant No.1 possessed a valid licence at the time of the accident, and I hereby affirm the said finding. 9. As regards the next contention raised by the Insurance Company that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle and therefore, there was a breach of the policy conditions, from perusal of the Insurance Policy (Ex.D-2), it is clear that the insurance company has received an additional premium of Rs.175/- to cover the legal liability of the employee/driver and that the sitting capacity of the offending vehicle is also mentioned to be 6+1 (total 7) and that, it is also emerged from the evidence of AW-2 Sudharu Telam that at the 5 time of accident, the deceased was working as a labourer in the offending vehicle and was being taken for a labour work. Thus, in view of above, this Court finds that there was no breach of the policy conditions on the date of the accident and the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability upon the Appellant/Insurance Company. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company is rejected. 10. Having gone through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and the principles of law laid down therein, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid judgment, being distinguishable on facts, is of no help to the counsel for the appellant. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, being without any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh