1 2026:CGHC:11670 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1232 of 2018 Shri Ram General Insurance Co Ltd, E-8 Ricco Industrial Area, Sitapura Jaipur (Rajasthan)....(Insurer) 302022 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Umashankar S/o Ramprasad Gupta, Aged About 47 Years 2 - Sushila Gupta W/o Umashankar Aged About 38 Years 3 - Ramprasad S/o Rupnarayan Aged About 90 Years 4 - Chandramuni W/o Ramprasad Aged About 78 Years 5 - Ganesh Kumar S/o Umashankar, Aged About 15 Years, Occupation Student Through Umashankar Respondent No.1, All without any Occupation, R/o Gram Boda Khamhartoli, Gram Panchayat Boda, Batauli, Thana Batauli Tahsil Sitapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh (claimants) 6 - Philmon Tirkey S/o Amaj Say Aged About 42 Years, Resident Bajajhal Batuali Thana Batuali Tehsil Sitapur District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh......(Owner Of Tractor Trolley C.G./14/E 2809/2658) 7 - Nirmal Paickra S/o Sohan Paikra, Aged About 29 Years, Caste Kauar Occupation Driver Resident Kudkel, Thana Batuali Tahsil Sitapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.......(Driver Of Tractor Trolley C.G./14/E 2809/2658) ... Respondent(s) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 For Appellant : Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate For Respondents/ Claimants : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate No one appears on behalf of the owner despite service of notice. SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/03/2026 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the award dated 27.3.2017 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.219/2015. 2. By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the claimants filed under Section 166 of the Act and accordingly awarded a total sum of Rs.9,83,384/- by way of compensation for the death of one Kartik Kumar Gupta, who died in a vehicular accident. The impugned award was passed jointly and severally against all the non-applicants/respondents including the appellant -Company being insurer of the vehicle in question. The primarily liability was fastened upon the Insurance Company. It is against this award, the Insurance Company alone has come up in appeal. 3. It is a death case. On 2.4.2015, deceased Kartik Kumar Gupta was travelling to his residence at Village Boda, Khamhartoli as a 3 pillion rider on a Motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-5- CJ/5240, driven by his uncle Sanjay Gupta. While en route, Sanjay Gupta parked the motorcycle near the Electricity Office to attend the call of nature. While the deceased remained seated on the stationary motorcycle, the offending vehicle - Tractor Trolley bearing registration No.CG 14E-2809/2658, owned by respondent No.1 and driven by respondent No.2, dashed against the said motorcycle from the front. As a result of the collision, Kartik Kumar Gupta sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. It was alleged that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 19 years and was working as Motor Mechanic and used to earn Rs.14000/- per month by selling goods in the market. A report to this effect was registered at the Police Station. This led to filing of a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act by the claimants, who are the legal representatives of Kartik Kumar Gupta. The offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. 4. Respondents contested the claim. Parties adduced evidence. The Tribunal as stated supra, allowed the claim petition in part. It determined the age of the deceased to be 18 years and fixed his monthly income at Rs.4500/-. Considering the prospects of future income, 50% enhancement was made, bringing the monthly income to Rs.6750/- and the annual income to Rs.81,000/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% was deducted towards his personal and living expenses, leaving the annual dependency to Rs.40,500/-. By applying a multiplier of 18 based on the age of the 4 deceased, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,29,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. In addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,79,384/- for medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium. Consequently, a total compensation of Rs.9,83,384/- was awarded to the claimants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the cover note, which formed the basis for issuing the Insurance Policy, was misplaced and an FIR was lodged to that effect. He submits that the vehicle owner obtained the Insurance Policy based upon the said cover note and consequently, the liability has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the Insurance Company failed to prove its claim regarding the misplaced cover note. Moreover, the Company did not produce sufficient documentary or material evidence before the Tribunal to establish that the cover note was lost /misplaced or that the Insurance Policy was subsequently obtained on the basis of the said cover note, the Insurance Policu has been obtained. Hence, the liability has rightly been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the Insurance Company’s primary contention concerns the alleged 5 misplacement of the cover note, on the basis of which the Insurance Policy was obtained by the owner of the offending vehicle. However, the Insurance Company failed to establish that the cover note was lost and that on the basis of the said cover note, the Insurance Policy was subsequently obtained. Upon a thorough examination of the record, the Tribunal observed that the insurer failed to produce any evidence of a police report or formal complaint lodged against the owner, who allegedly obtained the Insurance Policy on the basis of the lost cover note. Further, no enquiry was conducted into the matter. The Insurance Company failed to produce requisite documentary evidence, such as the standard format and official seal of the issuing authority, to substantiate its claims. Thus, the insurer has failed to provide a factual basis to sustain the contentions raised in its defence. 9. Considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant/Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove its contention that the Insurance Policy was obtained on the basis of a lost cover note. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company for want of any evidence adduced by them. 10. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be totally devoid of any merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay