Babulal & Ors v. Devendra Kumar Jaiswal & Another
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:23496 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 769 of 2018 1 - Devendra Kumar Jaiswal S/o Ramnarayan Jaiswal Aged About 35 Years R/o Khuthanpara, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Aatmaram Gond S/o Parasram Gond Aged About 38 Years R/o Near Bazaar, Dabripara, Baikunthpur, Post Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Babulal S/o Bagholi Aged About 70 Years Caste Uraon, R/o Village Aamgaon, Police Station Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
2 - Smt. Shanti W/o Babu Lal Aged About 65 Years Caste Uraon, R/o Village Aamgaon, Police Station Charcha, Occupation Housewife, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 2 3 - Kumari Deepika D/o Late Bijendra Uraon Aged About 15 Years Minor Represented Through Guardian Babulal, Caste Uraon, R/o Village Aamgaon, Police Station Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Anil S/o Late Bijendra Uraon Aged About 10 Years Minor Represented Through Guardian Babulal, Caste Uraon, R/o Village Aamgaon, Police Station Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited 84 Narmda Road, Near Mittal Gas Agency, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) 482001 (Insurer), District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. 6 - Smt. Pramila Minj Wd/o Late Bijendra Uraon Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 66 Modipara, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 5 : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate along with Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 12/06/2025 Order on Board 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor 3 Vehicel Act, 1988, against the award dated 27.01.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 40/2016 (“Babulal & Ors. Vs. Devendra Kumar Jaiswal & Another”). 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondents No. 1 to 4, being the parents and children of deceased, namely, Bijendra @ Barra Uraon, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 56,55,000/- for his death. It was alleged that Bijendra @ Barra Uraon was working as a cleaner on bus No. CG 16-H/0103 and died on the spot on 23.03.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of appellant No. 2, who overturned the bus. The appellants denied liability, and the Claims Tribunal, after framing six issues and evaluating the evidence, awarded Rs. 7,42,856/- as compensation. The Tribunal further held under issue No. 2 that the vehicle was being operated without a valid permit, in violation of the insurance policy, and thereby fastened the liability upon the appellants. Hence, this appeal. 3. The tribunal has fastened liability upon the owner on the ground that vehicle was plied without their being any permit whereas learned counsel for the appellants submit that the vehicle was 4 having valid permit on the date of accident and the document of permit has been submitted before the tribunal along with list of documents but the Tribunal has erred in not considering the same. In the aforesaid aspect of the matter that the vehicle was having a valid permit was not considered by the Tribunal. The documents have not been exhibited. Upon perusal of the documents, it is apparent that perhaps it was overlooked by the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even though the documents has not been exhibited and it cannot be ignored as per judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in (2019) 2 SCC 186, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “20.8. Seventhly, if the Court did not exhibit the documents despite the appellants referring to them at the time of recording evidence, then in such event, the appellants cannot be denied of their right to claim the compensation on such ground. In our opinion, it was nothing but a procedural lapse, which could not be made basis to reject the claim petition. It was more so when the appellants adduced oral and documentary evidence 5 to prove their case and the respondents did nothing to counter them.” 5. Accordingly, the tribunal has fastened the liability upon the owner as such the appeal may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that the permit could not be brought into the knowledge of Tribunal as such the learned Claims Tribunal has not taken it into consideration and the liability was not fastened upon the Insurance company holding breach of Insurance policy. However, he admits this fact that appellant/owner has filed a copy of permit along with list of documents which has been received by the learned Claims Tribunal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record and have perused the permit as filed by the appellant/owner. 8. From the perusal of these documents, it is quite vivid that the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No. CG 16-H/0103 was having permit with effect from 20.12.2008 to 19.12.2013 which is effective on the date of accident i.e. on 23.03.2013. Since, the copy of permit has been filed by the appellant/owner and further since in the record of the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought to have 6 considered this document and have got it exhibited but it was not exhibited as such being fortified with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vimla Devi (supra) due to procedure lapse, the liability cannot be fastened upon the appellant/owner on the basis of vehicle being plied without permit whereas the offending vehicle was having valid permit on the date of accident as such the liability fastened upon the appellant/owner is perse illegal. Since, only on the ground that the vehicle was being plied without valid permit liability was fastened upon the appellant/owner as such the finding recorded by the Tribunal in respect of fastening liability upon the appellant/owner on account of not having valid permit is hereby set aside. 9. Accordingly, the liability is fastened upon the Insurance company i.e. respondent No. 5 herein. The respondent No. 5 is directed to pay the amount of compensation as directed by the Tribunal in its award dated 27.01.2018 within a period of two months. The owner is entitled to receive the amount which has been deposited by the owner. 10. Accordingly, the instant MAC is hereby allowed. Raghu Jat Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge