1 2026:CGHC:8384 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 159 of 2021  Om Prakash Pandey, S/o Bhagwan Prasad, Aged About 47 Years Caste Bramhan, R/o Mahuapara Sonhat, Police Station And Post Sonhar, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C G - 16 - 0182) ... Appellant versus 1. Ramsharan, S/o Late Amar Sai, Aged About 32 Years Caste Gond, R/o Ghuidih, Post, Police Station And Tahsil Odagi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2. Prem Shankar Yadav, S/o Mahesh Ram, Aged About 46 Years Caste Ahir, R/o Karhiyakhand, Police Station Patna, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C G - 16 - 0182) 3. Branch Manager, Ifco Tokiya General Insurance Company Ltd. Efco Sadan C-1, District Centre Saket New Delhi - 110017 (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C G - 16 - 0182) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/ : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate holding the brief of Claimant Mr. Vijay Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate holding the Insurance Company brief of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.02 .2026 1. The appllant/owner has challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District Korea passed in Claim Case No. 27/2019 dated 29.02.2020, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,16,100/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on account of death of Fulbasia SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.02.17 17:38:56 +0530 2 @ Fulkunwar and fastened liability with the owner of the vehicle. 2. The facts in brief are that on 09.05.2018 driver of the bus bearing registration No. CG 16 H 0182 drove it rashly and negligently, resultantly, it turned turtle. The passengers sustained grievous injures, Fulbasia @ Fulkunwar also sustained injuries and succumbed to death. The son of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, wherein he pleaded that at the time of accident age of the deceased was 50 years and earning Rs. 4,500/-. The Insurance Company filed reply and took plea that offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner would argue that though communication was sent by the Insurance Company with regard to dishonour of cheque No. 106991, but the Insurance Company failed to prove this fact. He would submit that the Insurance Company did not place on record documents to establish the fact that the owner of the offending vehicle was duly communicated with regard to dishonour of cheque. He would submit that in absence of such documentary evidence, it can be presumed that the vehicle was insured on the date of accident and the learned Tribunal should have fastened liability with the Insurance Company. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. Ms. Vartika Shrivastava would submit that on 09.06.2017 cheque No. 106991 was submitted with the Insurance Company against amount of premium. She would submit that said cheque was dishonoured on 09.06.2017. It is contended that the owner of vehicle was duly communicated through registered letter dated 20.09.2017. Ms. Shrivastave would submit that despite service of said notice, the owner of the vehicle 3 failed to pay premium to get the offending vehicle insured. Thus, on the date of accident the vehicle was not insured, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly fastened liability with the owner of the vehicle. 5. Mr. Amit Nayak would support the contention made by Ms. Shrivastava. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The learned Tribunal has fastened liability with the owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident, the vehicle was not insured. It appears that premium to get insured the offending vehicle, a cheque No. 106991 was submitted by the owner with the Insurance Company, but said cheque got dishonoured on 09.06.2017. The owner of the vehicle was communicated through registered letter dated 20.09.2017 and the owner of the vehicle could not prove the fact that subsequently amount of premium was deposited with the Insurance Company. It is also not proved that the letter sent by the Insurance Company dated 20.09.2017 was not served. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant