1 CGHC010103442020 2026:CGHC:32063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No.730 of 2020 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Branch Manager, Branch Office Mandla, Hotel Astha Complex, State Bank Of India Road, Civil Line Mandla (Madhya Pradesh). Through Its Authorized Authority Manager, T.P. Hub, Divisional Office - 2nd Floor Agrawal Chamber, Above Canra Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Sukhmaniya Wd/o Late Babulal Minj Aged About 25 Years 2 - Raj S/o Late Babulal Minj Aged About 9 Years 3 - Rani D/o Late Babulal Minj Aged About 7 Years 4 - Rina D/o Late Babulal Minj Aged About 5 Years 5 - Jethuram S/o Jagsai Minj Aged About 80 Years 6 - Smt. Dilmuti W/o Jethuram Aged About 65 Years Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are minor through their grand father Jethuram Uraon (Respondent No.5) Respondent Nos.1 to 6 all R/o Village Milanpathra, P.S. And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 7 - Ramashankar @ Bablu S/o Sonu Das Aged About 42 Years Caste - Chaudhari, R/o Bauridand / P.S. And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 8 - Satish Agrawal S/o Sethram Agrawal R/o Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 27/07/2026 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant calling in question the legality, validity and the correctness of the award dated 24.12.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Korea in Claim Case No.45/2017, by which the liability to pay compensation to to the respondent Nos.1 to 6 has been fastened upon the appellant insurance company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No.7 driver was driving the vehicle without having valid and effective driving licence on the date of incident. He further submits that the deceased was sitting in mudguard of the tractor, as such he was unauthorized passenger and as per policy of the insurance company, risk of passenger was not covered, but the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly fastened liability upon the 3 appellant to pay compensation to the respondent Nos.1 to 6, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 submits that insofar as the contention of the appellant is concerned that the respondent No.7 driver was not having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of incident, the learned Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding in para 18 of its judgment that no investigation report was submitted by the insurance company with regard to driver not having any valid and effective driving licence and no document or report from the RTO Office was submitted by the insurance company, as such the liability to pay compensation to the respondent Nos.1 to 6/claimants has rightly been fastened upon the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Insofar as the contention of the appellant insurance company that the respondent No.7 driver was not having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of incident is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding in para 18 of its judgment that no investigation report was submitted by the insurance company with regard to driver not having any valid and effective driving licence and no document or report from the RTO Office was submitted by the insurance company. The appellant insurance company also got examined Mr. T. K. Garhewal in 4 support of its contention but in absence of any investigation report or any document or report from the RTO Office, his statement cannot be relied upon to exonerate the appellant insurance company from paying the compensation to the respondent Nos.1 to 6/claimants, as such I do not find any merit in this appeal. 6. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Nirala