1 2026:CGHC:25735 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1601 of 2015 1 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.............Non Applicant No. 03. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Basanti Wd/o Late Anil Kumar Kashyap, Aged About 25 Years R/o Harampara, Geedam, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh.....Applicant No. 1. 2 - Vijay S/o Late Anil Kumar Kashyap, Aged 08 Months, Minor Through His Mother Smt. Basanti Respondent No. 01 R/o Harampara, Geedam, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh.....Applicant No. 02. 3 - Sunil Kumar Kashyap S/o Mahadev, Aged About 20 Years R/o Harampara, Geedam, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh.....Applicant No. 03. 4 - Sumendra Singh S/o Nityanand, Aged About 28 Years Caste Rajput, R/o Metguda, Near House Of Rajeshwar Contractor, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Driver...Non Applicant No. 01). 5 - Nityanand Singh S/o Raghunath Singh, Metguda, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh (Owner...Non Applicant No. 02). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : None. HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.06.24 13:33:39 +0530 2 For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (23.06.2026) 1. This is the Insurer’s appeal against the award dated 24.08.2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 175/2014. 2. As against compensation of Rs. 12,30,000/- claimed by the respondents No.1 to 3/claimants by filing claim application under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth ‘the Act’) for loss of income due to death of Anil Kumar Kashyap in the motor accident on 24.10.2013, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.6,48,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in favour of the claimants (respondents No. 1 to 3) and against the appellant/insurance company. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. CG-17-H-6660 by its driver – Sumendra Singh, i.e. respondent No.4; deceased Anil Kumar Kashyap, who was traveling on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-18-B-9314, sustained grievous injuries in the motor accident and died; the appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation in favour of claimant/respondents No.1 to 3, fastening liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/insurance company. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the Claims Tribunal is unjustified in fastening the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant/insurance company as the accident took place on 24.10.2013 and on the date of the accident the vehicle had no valid and effective fitness certificate. To prove this fact the appellant/insurance company has examined its witnesses Vijay Prakash Shukla (NAW-1), Administrative officer and Ude Ram Dhruv (NAW-2), Investigator, regional Transport Office Jagdalpur. According to Administrative Officer, Vijay Prakash Shukla NAW(1), the insurance company issued a package policy for the said vehicle for the period from 18.03.2013 to 17.03.2014, under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which is a package policy for commercial goods transport vehicles. At the time of the accident on 24.10.2013, the vehicle did not have a valid and effective fitness for road driving, and without fitness, the vehicle’s RC is ineffective. But learned claims Tribunal by holding that witness Uderam Dhruv (NAW-2) has admitted that he has not brought the fitness register for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 and thus, it is not proved that fitness was not issued. Learned Claims Tribunal wrongly appreciated the evidence in this regard whereas the appellant/insurance company proved that on the date and time of the alleged accident offending vehicle was being driven without valid and effective fitness certificate. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant/insurance company may be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 & 5 submits that the insurance company has not discharged its burden to prove that the offending vehicle did not possess a valid 4 and effective fitness certificate on the date and time of the accident by producing any documentary evidence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 7. In the case in hand, to prove the fact that the offending vehicle had no effective fitness certificate on the date of the accident, the appellant/insurance company examined its witness, Ude Ram Dhruv (NAW-2) from the RTO. Ude Ram Dhruv (NAW-2) stated that fitness was effective till 13.07.2012, and thereafter, fitness was not issued. A letter vide Ex. NA-9 dated 03.07.2015 has been sent by the insurance company to the owner of the offending vehicle to produce documents of the offending vehicle, but the fitness certificate has not been produced by the owner/respondent No. 5 of the said vehicle. To prove this fact, the insurance company/appellant exhibited a letter, receipt and acknowledgement vide Exs. NA-9, NA-10 and NA-11, respectively. The driver/owner of the offending vehicle has not adduced any evidence to prove the fact that the offending vehicle had a valid and effective fitness certificate on the date of the accident. 8. In view of aforementioned facts and evidence available on record, in the considered opinion of this court, on the date of accident offending vehicle was not having valid and effective fitness certificate. 9. Now the question arises that whether in absence of fitness certificate of a particular vehicle on the date of accident there is breach of conditions of Insurance Policy or not? 10.Section 56 of 1988 act provides for certificate of fitness of transport vehicle. Issue of fitness certificate has been considered by five judges Bench of Hon’ble Kerala High 5 Court in the matter of Pareed Pillai Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2019) 1 ACJ 16 and held thus: (paras 15, 16, 17 and 21) “15. As mentioned above, fitness of a vehicle, to be used as a transport vehicle, is of paramount importance. The necessity to have 'Fitness Certificate' is prescribed under Section 56 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 56 clearly stipulates that, a transport vehicle [subject to the provisions of Section 59 (power to fix the age limit of motor vehicle) and Section 60 (registration of the vehicles belonging to the Central Government)] shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Section 39, unless it carries a 'Certificate MACA No. 2030 of 2015 and connected cases of Fitness' as prescribed. By virtue of Section 84 (a), as mentioned already, it is a mandatory requirement of every Permit, that the vehicle to which the Permit relates, shall carry valid 'Certificate of Fitness' issued under Section 56 at all time, absence of which will automatically lead to a situation that the vehicle will not be deemed as having a Permit [if it is not having a 'Fitness Certificate' on a given date]. Using a motor vehicle in an unsafe condition in any public place itself is an offence under Section 190 of the Act. Separate penalty is prescribed under Section 192 for driving or using the motor vehicle in contravention of Section 39 of the Act [i.e. without registration]; which at the first instance by fine upto Rs.5000/- [not less than Rs. 2000/-] and for the second or subsequent offences, it may be with imprisonment, which may extend to one year or fine up to Rs.10,000/- [not less than Rs.5000/-] or with both; of course, conferring power upon the Court to impose a lesser punishment, for reasons to be recorded. Similarly, separate punishment is provided for using vehicles without 'Permit' as provided under Section 192A [first offence with fine upto Rs.5000/- which shall not be less than Rs.2000/- and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment upto one year [which shall not be less than 3 months or with fine up to Rs.10.000/- which shall not be 6 less than Rs.5000/-] or with both; here MACA No. 2030 of 2015 and connected cases again conferring power on the Court to impose lesser punishment, for reasons to be recorded. Reference is made to the above provisions only to illustrate the utmost requirement to have a valid 'Registration, Permit and Fitness Certificate'. 16. Importance of the fitness/road worthiness of a vehicle, right from the time of registration of the vehicle, is further discernible from Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 [referred to as Central Rules]. The said Rule deals with application for registration of motor vehicles, which, among other things, stipulates that it shall be accompanied by various documents. Under sub-rule (1) (g), it is mandatory to produce road worthiness certificate in Form 22 from the manufacturers [Form 22A from the body builders]. On completing the formalities/procedures, 'Certificate of Registration' is to be issued in terms of Rule 48 of the Central Rules in Form 23/23A, as the case may be. The said Rule contains a proviso, insisting that, when Certificate of Registration pertains to a transport vehicle, it shall be handed over to the registered owner only after recording the Certificate of Fitness in Form 38. Validity of the Certificate of Fitness is only to the extent as envisaged under Rule 62 of the Central Rules, which mandates, as per the proviso, that the renewal of a Fitness Certificate shall be made only after the Inspecting Officer or MACA No. 2030 of 2015 and connected cases authorised Testing Station as referred to in sub Section 1 of Section 56 of the Act has carried out the test specified in the table given therein. 17. The stipulations under the above provisions clearly substantiate the importance and necessity to have a valid Fitness Certificate to the transport vehicle at all times. The above prescription converges on the point that Certificate of Registration, existence of valid Permit and availability of Fitness Certificate, all throughout, are closely interlinked in the case of a transport vehicle and one requirement cannot be segregated from the other. The transport vehicle should be completely fit and road worthy, to be plied on 7 the road, which otherwise may cause threat to the lives and limbs of passengers and the general public, apart from damage to property. Only if the transport vehicle is having valid Fitness Certificate, would the necessary Permit be issued in terms of Section 66 of the Act and by virtue of the mandate under Section 56 of the Act, no transport vehicle without Fitness Certificate will be deemed as a validly registered vehicle for the purpose of Section 39 of the Act, which stipulates that nobody shall drive or cause the motor vehicle to be driven without valid registration in public place or such other place, as the case may be. These requirements are quite 'fundamental' in MACA No. 2030 of 2015 and connected cases nature; unlike a case where a transport vehicle carrying more passengers than the permitted capacity or a goods carriage carrying excess quantity of goods than the permitted extent or a case where a transport vehicle was plying through a deviated route than the one shown in the route permit which instances could rather be branded as 'technical violations'. In other words, when a transport vehicle is not having a Fitness Certificate, it will be deemed as having no Certificate of Registration and when such vehicle is not having Permit or Fitness Certificate, nobody can drive such vehicle and no owner can permit the use of any such vehicle compromising with the lives, limbs, properties of the passengers/general public. Obviously, since the safety of passengers and general public was of serious concern and consideration for the law makers, appropriate and adequate measures were taken by incorporating relevant provisions in the Statute, also pointing out the circumstances which would constitute offence; providing adequate penalty. This being the position, such lapse, if any, can only be regarded as a fundamental breach and not a technical breach and any interpretation to the contrary, will only negate the intention of the law makers. 11.In the facts of present case and law laid down by five judges Bench of Kerala High Court in case of Pareed Pillai (Supra) 8 and in the light of judgment passed by this Court in the matter of New India Insurance Company Limited vs. Jatindra Nath Mali & Ors., in MAC No. 1206 of 2013 on 14.05.2019, I am of the view that there is violation of conditions of Insurance Policy and the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is not found sustainable and hence requires interference. As there is breach of conditions of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company/appellant does not have any liability to satisfy the award passed by learned Claims Tribunal. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was covered with the insurance policy (Ex.NA-1) by the appellant/insurance company, applying the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Manuara Khatun and others v. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others, reported in 2017 (4) SCC 796, I direct the insurance company/appellant to first pay the amount of compensation fixed by the Tribunal and then to recover the same from the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle by filing execution petition before the concerned Claims Tribunal. 13. In accordance with the foregoing, the appeal is disposed of. 14.Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu