1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 507 of 2026 1 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Rama Trade Centre, First Floor, Near Bus Stand Rajiv Plaza Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh New Address 1st Floor, L.I.C. Building, Magar Para Road Bilaspur, Distt. Bialspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Hyva No. C.G. 10 R 4488) (N.A. No. 1) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ganesh Jagat S/o Jhadiram Jagat Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Ved Parsada, P.S. Masturi Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 2 - Suyash Dubey S/o S.K. Dubey R/o Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Ward, Sarkanda P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (N.A. 2) (Owner Of Vehicle Hyva No. C.G. 10 R 4488) 3 - Vivekanand Kashyap S/o Jagdish Kashyap Aged About 24 Years R/o Bajrang Para Mulmula P.S. Mulmula Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Hyva No. C.G. 10 R 4488) (N.A. 3) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 20/02/2026 Heard on IA No. 02 – application for condonation of delay in filing the PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.02.23 16:58:51 +0530 2 appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on admission. 4. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the MV Act of 1988) has been filed assailing the legality, correctness, and judicial propriety of the award dated 14.10.2025 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (for short, the learned Claims Tribunal), Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No. 1250 of 2023. By the impugned award, against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the learned claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,45,213/- in favour of the respondent No. 1/claimants on account of the injuries sustain by him in an accident had occurred on 15.07.2023 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Hyva bearing registration No. CG 10 R 4488 driven by respondent No. 3 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 / owner and insured with the appellant / insurance company. 5. As per pleadings, the respondent No. 1 / claimant met with an accident by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and sustain severe injuries and filed an application under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming the above stated compensation. 6. The claim application was resisted by the insurance company on various ground including taking a plea that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 7. The learned claims Tribunal framed issues decided the same in favour of the respondent No. 1 / claimant and awarded the above stated compensation by the impugned award. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though there was a permit of the offending vehicle but was in the name of previous owner and there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 3 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. Perusal of the impugned award indicates that Issue No. 4 was framed with regard to the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. While deciding Issue No. 4, the learned Claims Tribunal found that it was for the appellant to prove the said issue; however, no evidence was led in that regard. The learned claims Tribunal further recorded that, as per the seizure memo (Ex. P-6), the offending vehicle was found to be having a valid registration certificate, insurance policy, permit, and fitness certificate. The law is well settled that in order to establish a breach of the policy conditions, the insurance company is required to prove such breach by leading clear and cogent evidence. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the insurance company has failed to discharge the said burden. Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal does not appear to be contrary to the evidence on record to warranting interference in this appeal. 11. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan