1 2026:CGHC:14790 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 95 of 2019 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Paras Complex, Opposite Sbi, Gurudwara Station Road, Durg Chhattisgarh. (Police No. 270381/31/14/100007852). ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Ramla Bai W/o Pitamber Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Jhalmala, Post Ranka, Tehsil Berla, Thana And District Bemerara Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ashish Thakur S/o Shantilal Thakur Aged About 21 Years Occupation Driver, Resident Village Borai, Thana - Pulgaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sapna Agrawal W/o Anil Agrawal House No. 121/14, Prem Nagar Ward No. 14, Thana And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Tata S No. Cg 07/ca/4625) (Owner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Miss Prerna Agrawal appears on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Res./claimant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.04.01 11:20:36 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 30/03/2026 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 16.5.2018 passed by the Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.72/2016 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.9,77,200/- has been fastened on the Insurance Company. 2. Miss Prerna Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that from perusal of the document (Ex.-D/3) it is quite vivid that the offending vehicle did not have fitness certificate on the date of the accident and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable in view of the provisions contained under Section 56 of the Act, 1988. She also submits that the interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal is also on the higher side, which may be reduced to 6%. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant would support the impugned award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 3 5. Though vide Ex.-D/3, officer of the Insurance Company has proved the fact that on 5.3.2015, the offending vehicle did not have fitness certificate, but vide Ex.-D/1, which is a document filed and proved by the Insurance Company, validity of the fitness was up to 30th December, 2017, which has been accepted by the Claims Tribunal, in which I do not find any illegality or perversity warranting interference. 6. So far as interest is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% from the date of presentation of claim petition. However, considering the entire facts situation of the case, rate of interest is reduced to 7% instead of 9%. 7. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above and the Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve