1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 471 of 2016 Judgment Reserved on 03.12.2025 Judgment Pronounced on 12.12.2025 The United India Insurance Company Ltd Through Its Divisional Manager, Branch Office Anupma Chowk, Jagdalpur, Zila- Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh ...............Respondent No.3, ... Appellant versus 1 - Jeevrakhan Khunte S/o Chhindiram Yadav, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Munjala, Thana-Bhanpuri, Zila-Baster, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimant No.1. 2 - Mahesh Baghel S/o Sonaruram, Aged About 25 Years R/o Mungapadar, Thana- Kondagaon, Zila- Kondagaon, Presently Resident Of Village Garenga, Tahsil- Bakavand, Thana- Karpavand, Zila-Bastar, Chhattisgarh ...............Non-Appellant No.1, 3 - Smt. Dayamani W/o Late Bhagatnath, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Garenga, Tahsil- Bakavand, Thana- Karpavand, Chhattisgarh ..............Non- Appellant No.2(1), 4 - Kumari Seventi D/o Late Bhagatnath, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Garenga, Tahsil- Bakavand, Thana- Karpavand, Chhattisgarh ..............Non- Appellant No.2 (2) 5 - Kumari Geeta D/o Late Bhagatnath, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Garenga, Tahsil- Bakavand, Thana- Karpavand, Chhattisgarh ..............Non- Appellant No.2(3) 6 - Kumari Nilendri D/o Late Bhagatnath, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Garenga, Tahsil- Bakavand, Thana- Karpavand, Chhattisgarh ..............Non- Appellant No.2(4) 7 - Kumari Divya D/o Late Bhagatnath, Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Respondent No.3/ Non-Appellant No.2(1) Smt. Dayamani, 2 W/o Late Bhagatnath, R/o Village Garenga, Tahsil- Bakavand, Thana- Karpavand, Chhattisgarh ..............Non-Appellant No.2 (5) 8 - Vinay Kumar S/o Late Bhagatnath, Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Respondent No.3/ Non-Appellant No.2 (1) Smt. Dayamani, W/o Late Bhagatnath, R/o Village Garenga, Tahsil- Bakavand, Thana- Karpavand, Chhattisgarh ..............Non-Appellant No.2 (6) 9 - Kumari Anjali D/o Late Bhagatnath, Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Respondent No.3/ Non-Appellant No.2(1) Smt. Dayamani, W/o Late Bhagatnath, R/o Village Garenga, Tahsil- Bakavand, Thana- Karpavand, Chhattisgarh ..............Non-Appellant No.2(7) ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal and Smt. Preeti Yadav, Advocates. For Respondents 1 & 2 : None, though served. For Respondents 3 to 9 : Ms. Shaleeni Jangde appears on behalf of Shri A.L.Singroul, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) C.A.V. Judgment 1. This is insurer’s appeal filed Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act, 1988’) seeking exoneration from liability to pay compensation awarded by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jagdalpur, Dist.Bastar vide its award dated 18.12.2015 passed in claim case No. 70/2015. 2. As per the claim petition, the accident occurred on 29.04.2013, on which date, at village near Garenga Bazar Chowk, the Tractor bearing registration No.CG-17-G-5107 (for brevity, the offending vehicle) being driven by its driver Mahesh Baghel (Non-applicant No.1) in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Jeevrakhan (claimant/respondent No.1) and thereby caused accident, as a result of which, the injured/claimant sustained injuries on his right leg, above the heel and other parts of the body. Parties to this appeal shall be referred herein as per their description before the Claims Tribunal. 3 3. On a claim petition moved by respondent No.1/claimant, the Tribunal, after appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.4,93,160/- as total compensation in favour of the claimant, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation, while fixing the liability primarily on the appellant/insurance company to indemnify the compensation. Hence, this appeal by the insurer/appellant herein. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would submit that though the offending vehicle Tractor was insured with the appellant/insurance company on the date of accident, but at that time, the driver/Non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence and that, the copy of driving licence brought on record was fake and forged one. He would further submit that in fact, the driving licence No.V/42/N.P.R./2008 was issued in favour of one Dr.Vikas R.D.Udan and not in favour of Mahesh Baghel, Non-applicant No.1. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal, without appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective, has erroneously fixed the liability upon the appellant/insurer and the same is not sustainable. In support, he placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sujata Arora and others reported in 2013 ACJ 2129 and Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Limited and others reported in 2019 ACJ 2401. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 9 would submit that the burden to prove breach of policy condition was upon the appellant/insurance company. She would further submit that as per statement of N.A.W. 3 Ramkaran Ratre, Asstt. Grade-II of R.T.O., the driving licence No.V/42/N.P.R./2008 is not visible and that, as per seizure memo (Ex.P.3), the original driving licence was seized by the Police during investigation, but 4 no such original driving licence was produced by the insurance company. Therefore, the finding of the Claims Tribunal fixing the liability upon the appellant/insurer is correct finding, based on proper appreciation of evidence and material available on record. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 7. The point that would arise in this appeal is whether the appellant/insurance company has proved the offending vehicle being plied in breach of insurance policy. 8. In order to prove its burden, the Non-applicant No.3/insurance company has led evidence by examining one Ramkaran Ratre (N,.A.W.3), Asst. Grade-II in R.T.O. Jagdalpur, who has stated that driving licence No. V/42/N.P.R./2008, dated 20.06.2008 has not been issued in favour of Non- applicant No.3/driver Mahesh Baghel Narayanpur but it was issued in the name of Dr. Vikas Ramdas Udan. However, in cross-examination, he specifically admitted that the number mentioned in the copy of driving licence produced on record is not visible. He further admitted that name and address were not clearly visible in the photocopy of the driver’s licence. He further admitted that he has not brought the photocopy of the driving licence with him and lastly he categorically admitted that he could not state about the validity or invalidity in absence of original copy of licence issued in the name of person. Perusal of statements of above witnesses produced by the insurance company would itself indicate that the copy of driving licence produced on record is not clearly visible, name and address of the person are also not legible and that, to prove the report (N.A.2) of investigator, the insurance company had not examined the investigator. Besides above, as per seizure 5 memo (Ex.P.3), original driving licence has been seized by the Police, but neither the original driving licence nor even its copy of the same has been produced on record by the appellant/insurer. The learned Claims Tribunal, after scrutiny of evidence, has held that the insurance company has failed to prove that there was a breach of the term of the contract of insurance. 9. When the present case is examined in the light of evidence, this Court finds that the appellant/insurance company has failed to lead evidence before the Tribunal to show that at the time of accident, the driver/Non-applicant No.1 Mahesh Baghel was having fake and forged licence. This apart, the insurance company was already aware of seizure memo, by which, the original driving licence was alleged to be seized by the police, but the insurance company did not make any attempt and kept silent before the Tribunal. It is also pertinent to mention here that the burden of proving the fact that there was any breach of policy conditions by the Non-applicant No.1 was upon the insurance company, but the insurance company has failed to do so. The case laws cited on behalf of the appellant, being distinguishable to the facts of the present case, are of no help to the insurance company. In that view of the matter, the learned Claims Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence, was justified in fastening the liability upon the insurance company. 10. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal filed by the insurance company, being without any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani