1 CGHC010096942023 2026:CGHC:42217 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 681 of 2023 United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Authorise Authority, Deputy Manager, In- Charge, T P Hub, Divisional Office- Ist Floor, L I C Building, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ........Non-Applicant No. 3 ... Appellant versus 1 - Rajkumari Netam, Wd/o Late Ranjeet Singh Netam, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Shivtikari, P.O. Jondhara, Police Station Pachpedi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ........Applicant No. 1 2 - Sampat Netam, S/o Late Ranjeet Singh Netam Aged About 18 Years, R/o Village- Shivtikari P.O. Jondhara, Police Station Pachpedi , District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .........Applicant No. 2 3 - Vaishnav Netam, S/o Late Ranjeet Singh Netam, Aged About 11 Years, Minor- Through Their Mother- Rajkumari Netam (Respondent No. 1) R/o Village- Shivtikari P.O. Jondhara Police Station Pachpedi , District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ........Applicant No. 3 4 - Dhaneshwari Netam, D/o Late Ranjeet Singh Netam, Aged About 6 Years, Minor- Through Their Mother- Rajkumari Netam (Respondent No. 1), R/o Village- Shivtikari, P.O. Jondhara Police PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.10.05 11:47:57 +0530 2 Station Pachpedi , District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ……………...Applicant No.4 5 - Uday Narayan Tiwari, S/o Late Ramkeshwar Tiwari, R/o Village- Nevra, Surajmal, Police Station Rishiup, District- Auorangabad (Bihar) (Driver) ......Non- Applicant No. 1 6 - M/s Pandey Builders Material Supplier, R/o Ward No. Mishra Marg, Ramanujganj, District : Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Owner) ..........Non Applicant No. 2 ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board ( 28/09/2026 ) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company assailing the award dated 23/01/2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilapur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.39/2020, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,98,500/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 14/11/2019. 2. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the permit of the offending vehicle was not authorized on the date of the accident and, therefore, the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, constituting a breach thereof. Consequently, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned award, to the extent it fastens liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company, deserves to be set aside and the appellant be exonerated from its liability. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the objection raised by the appellant- Insurance Company regarding the absence of authorization of the permit is misconceived. He submits that the vehicle in question was being operated within the State of Chhattisgarh and the accident had also occurred within the State of Chhattisgarh; therefore, no separate authorization of the permit was required for plying the vehicle within the State. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Binod Kumar Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd., SLP (Civil) No.13060 of 2020. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record of the Tribunal with due circumspection. 6. The sole contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the permit of the offending vehicle had not been duly authorized and, therefore, the vehicle was being plied in contravention of the provisions of law as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The said contention, however, cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Binod Kumar Singh (supra), wherein, in paragraph 8, it has been observed as under: “8. This Court has carefully gone through the permit which is on record and the National Permit is certainly valid up to 13.10.2017. The authorization fee was required to be paid only when the truck was moving out of State of Bihar as it was registered in the State of Bihar and the truck caught fire on account of short-circuit on 08.06.2014 in the State of Bihar itself and, therefore, the respondent company could not have repudiated the claim on such a frivolous ground. The permit in question was issued by the competent authority in Bihar and, therefore, there was no requirement of paying authorization fee when the truck was being used in the State of Bihar and as per the terms and conditions of the National Permit, authorization fee was required to be paid only when the truck was moving out of State of Bihar. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant was certainly entitled for the insurance claim as held by the State Commission and, therefore, the order passed by the National Commission, dated 19.08.2020, deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The respondent National Insurance Company is directed 5 to process the claim of the appellant and to pay the amount to the appellant within a period of 60 days from today. It is needless to mention that the claim became due in the year 2014 and it was repudiated by the respondent National Insurance Company in the year 2014 itself. The order of the State Commission allowing the claim was passed in the year 2017 which was reversed by the National Commission in the year 2020. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant was not only entitled for the entire claim amount right from the date it became due but he is also entitled for interest from the date of the complaint made before State Commission till the date, the amount is actually paid to him. The appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum and the same with the proposed amount be paid positively within 60 days from today.” 7. In the present case, the offending vehicle was registered with the Transport Authority at Ambikapur and was being operated within the territorial limits of the State of Chhattisgarh. The accident also occurred within the State of Chhattisgarh. In such circumstances, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Binod Kumar Singh (supra), no separate authorization of the permit was required for plying the vehicle within the State of Chhattisgarh. Consequently, the alleged absence of such authorization cannot be treated as a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy so as to absolve the appellant-Insurance Company of its liability to indemnify the insured. 6 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal fastening liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Prashant