1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 308 of 2024 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, R. K. Plaza, Pachpedi Naka, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001. (Insurer Of Motor Cycle Platina No. C.G.04 ND 6353) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Minor Rohan Kumar Prajapati S/o Dilip Prajapati Aged About 16 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Dilip Prajapati, Aged 44 Years, R/o Village Baihar, Thana Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.1). 2 - Raja Dhidhode S/o Bhukhanlal Dhidhode R/o Village Khapri, Sector 32, Thana Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No. 1) (Driver Of Motor Cycle Platina No. C.G. 04 ND 6353) 3 - Bholaram Dhidhode S/o Jagdeep Dhidhode R/o Village Khapri, Sector 32, Thana Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No. 2) (Owner Of Motor Cycle Platina No. C.G. 04 ND 6353) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 28/08/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) against an award dated 20/12/2023 passed in claim case No.692/2022 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District–Raipur (CG) (for short ‘Tribunal’) by which the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- in favour of respondent No.1/claimants on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident that took place on 14/03/2022 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (motor cycle) bearing registration No.CG 04 ND 6353 driven by respondent No.2, owned by respondent No.3 and insured with the appellant/insurance company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driver/respondent No.2 of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license and the witness of the insurance company was also examined and also deposed in the same line. Therefore, the learned Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay compensation which is liable to be set aside. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice. 5. From the records, it appears that the insurance company in its written statement stated that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. A witness to that effect was also examined however, learned Tribunal found that no investigation with regard to holding the valid license was carried out by the insurance company and no investigation report was filed. Considering these aspects, learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the insurance company could not prove its defence. 3 6. On perusal of the record and the impugned award, the finding so recorded appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence and it does not require any interference by this Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- ( Sachin Singh Rajput ) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.08.29 17:37:43 +0530