1 2026:CGHC:1087 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 794 of 2017 Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited Through Authorized Signatory, Sajit Ku. Ray, Aged About 26 Years, R/o II Floor, Jeet Towers, GE Road, Raipur, Police Station Azad Chowk, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Durgesh Kumar @ Rinku Soni S/o Mathura Prasad Soni, Aged About 23 Years R/o Shivvaji, Ward No. 05, Sanjay Colony, Balodabazar, P. S. City Kotwali, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ganesh Ram Khatriya, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Ahirwara, Sheetlapura, Police Station Nandini, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Suraj Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : None Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 07.01.2026 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 09.12.2016, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.01.07 18:43:18 +0530 2 Tribunal') in Claim Case No.H-107/2014, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim application of the claimant and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the non-applicants therein jointly and severally. 2. The brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that on 01/07/2014 at about 2:00 p.m., the claimant Durgesh Kumar, alias Rinku Soni, while driving his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04 KX- 0824 from Baloda Bazar towards Dhabadih at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road, was hit with great force by a Tata ACE vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04 JD-2886 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’), driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No. 1 from the opposite direction near the firecracker warehouse on the Baloda Bazar–Risda main road. As a result of the collision, the claimant was thrown off the motorcycle, which was completely damaged, and he sustained grievous injuries, including fractures of four bones of his right leg and injuries to other parts of his body. 3. The claimant was initially taken in an unconscious condition to the District Hospital, Balodabazar, where he was administered first aid and, considering the seriousness of the injuries, was referred to Raipur. Thereafter, the claimant remained admitted at Shri Narayana Hospital, Raipur, from 01/07/2014 to 16/07/2014 for treatment, which is stated to be continuing. It is pleaded that an amount of about Rs.2,00,000/- has already been incurred towards medical treatment and that substantial future medical expenses 3 are also anticipated. Owing to the injuries suffered in the accident, the claimant has incurred permanent disability and is unable to walk without assistance, requiring the constant help of an attendant both during hospitalization and in his daily routine. 4. The accident was reported by Khilesh Soni to City Kotwali Police Station, Balodabazar, on the basis of which Crime No. 298/2014 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar. 5. After recovering from the injuries, the claimant has preferred a claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that at the time of the accident, he was employed at Nandlal Fuels, Dhabadih, earning about Rs.6,000/- per month, which was the sole source of his livelihood. On account of the accident and the resultant permanent disability, he is unable to continue his employment and, therefore, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- from the non-applicants. 6. Proceedings against non-applicant No.1 were declared ex parte on 20.03.2015. 7. The claim was contested by the non-applicants, particularly non- applicant No.2/Insurance Company, by denying the material averments contending that at the time of the accident, the driver of the vehicle was in the same condition and lacked a valid and 4 effective driving license along with the necessary endorsement. Accordingly, Non-applicant No. 2 is entitled to be absolved from all liability for any alleged violation of the terms and conditions of ownership. It was further contended that the vehicle was being driven without a valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of the accident. Consequently, the insurance company, is also entitled to be released from any liability, as the driver and the owner failed to comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 134C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which requires the driver or person in charge of the vehicle to notify the insurer in writing of the accident, including the insurance policy number, validity period, date, time, and place of the accident, as well as details of the persons injured or killed and particulars of the driver’s license. This requirement was not fulfilled. On these grounds, the insurance company denies any liability, and the claim against it is not maintainable. 8. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, as well as oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,33,705/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants jointly and severally. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the concerned Claims Tribunal has illegally fastened liability 5 upon the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount, whereas the offending vehicle was not insured at the relevant time. It is contended that the insurance coverage of the vehicle was only from 15.03.2013 to 14.03.2014, and the Claims Tribunal erroneously relied solely on a cover note, which indicated that the vehicle was insured on the date of the accident. Learned counsel further submits that the said cover note was forged or false, and, therefore, no liability should be fastened upon the Insurance Company. 10. It is noted that no one appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service of notice. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No.1 submits that the Claims Tribunal has rightly passed the award, dealing with all aspects of the claim, and there is no ground to interfere with the same. As regards the cover note, it is submitted that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the cover note was a forged document, despite the copy of the cover note being available in the office of the Insurance Company. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for claimant and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 13. Learned Claims Tribunal, while answering Issue No. 3, in paragraphs 16 to 20, has categorically held that the vehicle 6 involved in the accident, namely Tata ACE bearing registration No. CG-04 JD-2886, was not being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Tribunal observed that the Insurance Company had contended that the vehicle was being operated by non-applicant No.1 without a valid and effective permit and fitness at the time of the accident, and, therefore, non- applicant No.2, the Insurance Company, was entitled to be released from all liabilities under the insurance policy. The burden of proving this contention lay squarely upon the Insurance Company. 14. In support of its case, the Insurance Company examined its legal officer, Sajeet Kumar Rai, who stated in his examination-in-chief that the vehicle Tata ACE, chassis number MAT445056DDA01254 and engine number 275IDI06AWYS 13635, was insured in the name of Ganeshram Kshatriya under comprehensive insurance policy No. FCV/S1017349/C1/03/K1C112, valid from 15.03.2013 to 14.03.2014 (Exhibit D-1), which was a four-page policy document duly signed on all pages. It was the Insurance Company’s case that this policy was not subsisting on the date of the accident, and, hence, they contended that they were not liable to pay compensation. 15. During cross-examination, the witness admitted that a cover note is issued prior to the issuance of an insurance policy and that a cover note for the vehicle in question had indeed been issued by 7 the Insurance Company in the name of Ganeshram Kshatriya. He further stated that the cover note remained valid only for one week and that the insurance policy is issued on the basis of the cover note. The witness also confirmed that the original cover note was kept in the office but had not been produced before the Claims Tribunal. It was noted that the photocopy of the cover note submitted in the proceedings incorrectly showed the third month as August instead of March, while the policy itself, Exhibit D-1, correctly reflected the insurance period from 15.03.2013 to 14.03.2014. 16. The Claims Tribunal further observed that a cover note is recognized as proof of insurance under Section 147(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and is admissible in the same manner as a certificate of insurance. Once the Insurance Company accepts the cover note and issues the insurance policy, it constitutes a valid contract of insurance under the general terms and conditions of the printed policy. 17. Additionally, the claimant’s evidence, including the RC book of the vehicle, the driver’s license, and the seizure memo of the criminal case (Exhibit P-6), established that the fitness certificate of the vehicle was valid until 24.03.2015 and that the driver’s license of non-applicant No. 1 was valid until 01.02.2032. On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal concluded that it was not proved that the Tata ACE vehicle was being operated in contravention of the 8 insurance policy. Accordingly, the Learned Claims Tribunal held that the Insurance Company’s plea regarding violation of insurance conditions was unsubstantiated, and therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant. 18. From a thorough perusal of the record, it is evident that the liability for payment of compensation was fastened upon the Insurance Company by the Claims Tribunal primarily on the basis of the cover note allegedly issued by the Insurance Company itself. In its appeal, the Insurance Company contended that the date mentioned in the cover note was manipulated and that the offending vehicle was not insured at the time of the accident, as the policy had already expired prior to the date of the accident. The Insurance Company further submitted that, in view of the purportedly expired policy, it could not be held liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle or pay compensation to the claimant. 19. However, this contention of the Insurance Company was tested through the evidence of its own witness, Sajeet Kumar Rai (NAW- 2(1)). During cross-examination, specific questions were put to the witness regarding whether he had obtained the original insurance policy reflecting the correct period of coverage, so as to substantiate the claim that the cover note produced by the vehicle owner was fraudulent or fake. The witness admitted that the original cover note or policy copy was maintained in the office of 9 the Insurance Company but failed to produce it before the Claims Tribunal. This omission deprived the Tribunal of an opportunity to verify the authenticity of the cover note. 20. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal noted that, in the absence of production of the original policy document or any corroborative material, the Insurance Company had not been able to establish that the cover note was fake or manipulated. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal was justified in relying on the cover note produced before it and in holding that the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the award. 21. In light of the above, it is clear that the Insurance Company, despite having the opportunity and means to substantiate its claim regarding the alleged forgery of the cover note, failed to lead any credible or tangible evidence in support of its contention. The mere assertion that the cover note was forged, or that the policy had expired, cannot, in the absence of documentary proof or corroborative testimony, be accepted as a valid ground to absolve the Insurance Company of its statutory liability. 22. Considering the entirety of the record and the evidence on file, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal has carefully examined the available evidence, including the submissions of the parties, and rightly concluded that the liability for payment of compensation rested with the Insurance Company. 10 23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company stands dismissed as devoid of merit. 24. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh