1 2026:CGHC:1302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 151 of 2025 1 - Sbi General Insurance Company Limited Through- Branch Manager/ Legal Officer, Address- Second Floor, Rama Port, Vyapar Vihar, Kranti Nagar (Vinoba Nagar), Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Santosh Verma S/o Itwari Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Bahera (Ghivari), P.S., Tahsil And District- Bemetara (C.G.) (Claimants) 2 - Chunendra Verma S/o Baldau Verma Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Lolesara, P.S. Tahsil And District- Bemetara (Driver) 3 - Gajendra Verma S/o Mahesh Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Lolesara, P.S. Tahsil And District- Bemetara (Owner) 4 - Shyamji Sahu S/o Kunjram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Pikari, P.S., Tahsil And District Bemetara (Registered Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/01/2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned award/order dated 18.03.2025 passed by 1st Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bemetara, (C.G), in claim case no. 43/2024, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 04.10.2023 the applicant/respondent No.1 was proceeding to his native village Behra on a motorcycle driven by his friend, and when they reached near Bhutada Rice Mill, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-25-L-5022 drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused an accident, as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries; thereafter, he was immediately taken to the District Hospital, Bemetara, for treatment and was subsequently referred to a higher medical centre for better treatment. It is further the case of the claimant that due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, he was unable to perform his work, incurred substantial medical expenses, and accordingly claimed compensation of Rs. 2,07,000/- under various heads. It is also stated that non-applicants Nos.1, 2 and 3, being the driver, person in possession, and registered owner of the offending vehicle, respectively, were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. The present appellant/insurance company filed its written statement denying all adverse averments and specifically pleaded that on the date of the accident the offending vehicle was being plied without a valid and effective driving licence, in violation 3 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and therefore sought exoneration from liability. It is pertinent to mention that an FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., non-applicant No.1, vide Crime No. 585/2023 (Exhibit 1/2) for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for driving and permitting the vehicle to be driven without a valid licence in a public place, and all criminal case documents were duly filed and exhibited by the claimant, which prima facie establish that the vehicle was being driven without a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. In support of its defence, the appellant examined its officer, Mr. Amin Khan, as D.W.-1, who proved the insurance policy and categorically deposed that, as per the criminal case records, an offence under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was registered against the driver for driving without a licence, constituting a clear violation of the policy conditions, and therefore the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. However, the learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.3 regarding violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by respondents Nos.1 to 3, held that although the burden of proof lay on the insurance company, it had failed to discharge the same on the ground that no notice was served upon the driver or owner of the offending vehicle, and consequently fastened the liability upon the insurance company, giving rise to the present appeal. 4 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order/award passed by the learned Tribunal is bad both on facts and in law. It is contended that the finding of the learned Tribunal requiring the Insurance Company to serve notice upon the owner and driver and call upon them to produce the driving licence is perverse and contrary to settled legal principles, inasmuch as the Insurance Company had duly examined its officer, who categorically deposed that on the date of the accident the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, a fact specifically pleaded in the written statement and never controverted by the owner or the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that offences under Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act were registered against the owner and driver, clearly indicating their knowledge of the FIR for driving without a licence and for permitting an unauthorised person to drive the vehicle, yet neither the owner nor the driver produced any driving licence before the Tribunal to rebut the said allegations. The learned counsel also submits that despite due service of summons upon non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3, they failed to appear and were proceeded ex parte, leaving no justification for the Tribunal to refrain from drawing an adverse inference against the owner and driver of the insured vehicle. It is further urged that the learned Tribunal overlooked the statutory obligation cast upon the owner of the vehicle to ensure, before permitting any person to drive, 5 that such person holds a valid and effective driving licence as mandated under Sections 3 and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Lastly, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal committed a grave illegality in holding that the Insurance Company failed to discharge its burden of proof, despite clear documentary and oral evidence on record, particularly the testimony of the Insurance Company’s officer, which sufficiently discharged the onus. The applicant, therefore, craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to urge such further grounds as may be available at the time of hearing. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs. Mediami Mangdu & Others, 2008 (1) C.G.L.J. 102. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that, this Court finds no merit in the revision petition so as to warrant interference with the impugned award dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, in Claim Case No. 43/2024. The learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence and correctly held that the burden to prove violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy squarely lay upon the Insurance Company, which it failed to discharge in accordance with law. Mere registration of offences under Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act or the testimony of the Insurance 6 Company’s officer, without taking effective steps such as issuing notice to the owner and driver to produce the driving licence or leading cogent and conclusive evidence to establish conscious and wilful breach of policy conditions, cannot be held sufficient to absolve the insurer of its statutory liability. 6. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal fastening liability upon the Insurance Company is neither perverse nor contrary to settled legal principles and calls for no interference in revisional jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition being devoid of substance is dismissed, and the impugned award is hereby affirmed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat