1 2026:CGHC:8933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1417 of 2023  Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near Vinayak Netralaya, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1. Swadha Sahu W/o Shri Tamaskar Sahu Aged About 23 Years (Wrongly Mentioned D/o Shri Tamaskar Sahu), R/o Indu Chowk, Talapara Road, P.S. Civi Lines, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.),..(Claimant) 2. Tamaskar Sahu S/o Jitendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Indu Chowk, Talapara Road, P.S. Civi Lines, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Lavkush Kurrey S/o Dhaniram Kurrey Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Boghai Kunda, P.S. Pipariya, District - Kabirdham (C.G.), (Driver), (Vehicle No. Cg - 09 -Jk- 9458) 4. Neelkanth Chandravanshi S/o Ramnath Chandravanshi Resident Of Mathpara, Kwardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) (Owner), (Vehicle No. Cg - 09 -Jk- 9458) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.02 .2026 1. The Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur passed in Claim Case No. 1027/2021 dated 28.02.2023, whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,27,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per ammum on account of death of Bhavyansh Sahu aged about 2 ½ years. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.02.24 14:23:26 +0530 2 2. The facts in brief are that on 07.06.2021 Bhavyansh Sahu was dashed by offending Hywa bearing registration No. CG 09 JK 9458 by its driver when he was in front of his house. In said accident, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. The parents of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, wherein they claimed a sum of Rs. 12,98,200/-. The Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence, and a criminal case for commission of offence punishable under Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of Motor Vehicle Act was registered against him. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. 3. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle failed to place on record driving licence. He would further contend that as the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the police while filing final report added Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicle Act against the driver of the offending vehicle. He would submit that the learned Tribunal ignored these facts and fastened liability with the Insurance Company. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate would submit that the Insurance Company failed to lead evidence to prove the fact that driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence to drive heavy vehicle Hywa. She would submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened liability with the Insurance Company and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Perusal of Ex. D/1(final report) would show that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was seized, but at the same time, offence 3 punishable under Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of Motor Vehicle Act were added. Prashant Bhumia, Law Officer of Insurance Company in cross- examination admitted the fact that no notice was issued to the owner or driver of the vehicle to produce driving licence. This witness admitted the fact that on the date of accident driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicle. The Insurance Company failed to examine any officials of Regional Transport Office to prove this fact. The learned Tribunal considered submission made by Insurance Company at length in para 12 of the award and decided issue No. 2 in negative. 7. 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 award. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant