Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 778 of 2019 1 - Samlu Das S/o Late Shivti Das Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Lendra Majhipara Police Station And Tahsil Dharbha (Owner Of Tractor No. C.G. - 17-G- 3346 And Tractor Trolley No. C.G. - 17 - G 3499) District Sukma Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh Versus ...Appellant 1 - Smt.Sukri W/o Late Mehattar Baghel Aged About 48 Years Cate Mahara R/o Chingpal Khasspara Tahsil - Darbha, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Subti Baghel D/o Late Mehattar Baghel Aged About 18 Years Cate Mahara R/o Chingpal Khasspara Tahsil - Darbha, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 3 - United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Its Branch Manager, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle), District : Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Santu S/o Late Nadgu Nag, R/o Keshapur Patelpara Police Station And Tahsil Dharbha (Driver Of Tractor No. C.G. - 17-G-3346 And Tractor Trolley No. C.G. - 17 - G 3499) District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 11/06/2025 SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 1. This appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor No. C.G. - 17-G-3346 And Tractor Trolley No. C.G. - 17 - G 3499 challenging the impugned award dated 08.01.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar (Jagdalpur), District – Bastar (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 111/2018 whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,08,844/- as amount of compensation to the respondents in a fatal accident case and fastened liability upon Non- Applicant No. 1/Respondent No. 4 and Non-Applicant No. 2/Appellant to satisfy the award. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 18.02.2018 at about 06:30 P.M., when Mehtar Baghel (since deceased) was traveling towards Chingpal and he reached near Keshapur School, at that time, the offending Tractor bearing registration no. C.G. - 17-G-3346 and Tractor Trolley No. C.G. - 17 - G 3499 driven by the Respondent No. 4 dashed Mehtar Baghel’s cycle from behind and caused accident. In the said accident, Mehtar Baghel suffered serious injuries and thereafter, he was taken to hospital for treatment and during the course of treatment, Mehtar Baghel succumbed to his injuries on 24.02.2018. Subsequent to the said incident, F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 13/2018 P.S. Darbha punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the Respondent No. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license is without giving proper opportunity to the driver to produce the driving license possessed by him before the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has not issued notice to the driver of the offending vehicle, 3 but the notice has been issued only to the owner of the of the vehicle and hence, he may be granted one opportunity to verify whether the driver was having the license or not and one opportunity might be given to the driver to produce the license. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission of the counsel for the appellant and would submit that after the accident, as the Insurance Company is having the details of the owner of the vehicle, notice has been issued to the owner of the offending vehicle to produce the relevant documents of the offending vehicle along with the driving license. However, the owner has not produced the driving license in reply to the notice issued by the Insurance Company. He next contended that the in the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, notices were issued to the owner, driver and the Insurance Company. The notice issued to the owner and driver was served, they were represented by the counsel and they have also submitted reply to the claim application. In the reply submitted by the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, a specific plea was taken that the driver of the offending vehicle, on the date of accident was not possessing a valid and effective driving license, but, the owner and driver have both failed to produce the copy of the driving license and to controvert the defence as taken by the Insurance Company with respect to no driving license. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal, hence, it may be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records of the claim case. 6. Perusal of the records of the claim case would show that after filing of the claim application, preliminary statements of the claimants were 4 recorded. Notices were issued to the non-applicants therein including owner, driver and Insurance Company. On 27.072018, the Non- Applicants No. 1 & 2 therein i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle appeared through their counsel Mr. Mukund Kashyap, they have also submitted their reply to the claim application. On 22.09.2018, in the reply submitted by the Respondent No. 3, the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company have taken specific plea that the driver, on the date of accident, was not possessed with a driving license. 7. The Non-Applicant No. 2 i.e. owner of the vehicle was examined before the learned Claims Tribunal, however, the Non-Applicant No. 1 therein i.e. Driver did not appear before the learned Claims Tribunal for recording of his evidence. The Non-Applicant No. 2 has not produced the copy of the license before the learned Claims Tribunal to controvert the plea taken by the Insurance Company that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed with a driving license. Further in the claim case, the documents of the Crime No. 13/2018, Outpost - Darbha is also filed. Ex. A-8 and Ex. A-9 are the seizure memo. During the investigation of the crime also, copy of the driving license has not been produced and seized. 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the evidence available on record as also, the proceedings of the learned Claims Tribunal, it is apparent that the notices were issued to the Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 i.e. Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle, they appeared before the learned Claims Tribunal and also submitted their reply, therefore, it cannot be said that the driver of the offending vehicle was not given proper opportunity to defend the case or to produce the evidence in his 5 support. Before this Court also, no document is filed to show that on the date of accident, the driver was possessing valid license. 9. It appears that the Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 have chosen not to submit the relevant documents i.e. the driving license before the learned Claims Tribunal. In absence of the document in proof with respect to the license, it cannot be said that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed any fault or error in recording a finding that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by a person having no effective and valid driving license in his possession. 10. Driving a vehicle by a person not having valid and effective driving license is a breach of conditions of the insurance policy, as under the insurance policy, there is a clause mentioned therein that, persons or classes of persons entitled to drive which reads as under:- “Any person including Insured provided that a person hold an effective driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner’s Licence may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989.” Perusal of the specific clause which is a contract between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company to indemnify the insured clearly mentions that the vehicle is to be driven by a person holding an effective driving license including the effective Learner’s license also. 6 11. For the foregoing discussions, as from the record, it is apparent that either the driver or the owner has not produced the driving license of the Non-Applicant No. 1 therein i.e. driver of the offending vehicle, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal justified in concluding that the vehicle was being driven in breach of the conditions of the Insurance Company and exonerating the Insurance Company from indemnifying the insured and therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award impugned. The appeal being sans merit, it is dismissed. 12. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge