Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:45267 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 969 of 2018 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 1 - Manager H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Compnay Limited Local Policy Issuing Office - Address 3rd Floor, Chawla Complex Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Co. Of Vehicle Truck No. Cg-07-C-4897), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Meera Joshi W/o Ramkhilawan Joshi, Aged About 45 Years R/o Zone - 03, Street No. S.P.A. Quarter No. 6/c, Sector 11, Thana Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramkhilawan Joshi S/o Late Ramadhin Joshi, Aged About 50 Years R/o Zone - 03, Street No. S.P.A. Quarter No. 6/c, Sector 11, Thana Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Manisha Joshi, D/o Ramkhilawan Joshi Aged About 21 Years R/o Zone - 03, Street No. S.P.A. Quarter No. 6/c, Sector 11, Thana Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Santosh Das Manikpuri, S/o Laxman Das Manikpuri, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chandi, Thana Kasdol, District Balodabazar, At Present - Gandhi Chowk, Near Gandhi Statue, Diprapara Durg, Thana 2 And District Durg Chhatisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. Cg - 07- C - 4897), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Abdul Gani Khan S/o Abdul Ajij Khan, Aged About 54 Years R/o M.I.G. 2, Plot No. 2026, M.P. Housing Board, Industrial Area, Jamul Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle Truck No. Cg-07-C- 4897), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
10. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record, and upon careful examination of the evidence, pleadings, and legal precedents cited, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts and evidence in their proper perspective and has returned a finding that there was no breach of the policy conditions by the owner (Respondent No. 5), and that the insurer (appellant) remained liable to satisfy the award. The plea regarding the absence of permit has been duly addressed by the Tribunal, and the explanation that the vehicle was being used for repair purposes, and not for commercial transport, finds support from the evidence and judicial pronouncements, including the judgments relied upon by Respondent No. 5, particularly State of Orissa & Ors. (supra), Gohar Mohammed (supra) and Amrit Paul Singh (supra). This Court also finds no merit in the argument regarding inflated compensation, as the Tribunal has applied the settled principles of law while assessing just and fair compensation, including future prospects in line with the law laid 8 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. It is pertinent to reproduce paragraph 10 of the judgment in State of Orissa & Ors. (supra) , as the same directly addresses the issue involved in the present case and supports the contention of Respondent No. 5 regarding exemption from the requirement of a permit when the vehicle is being used for repair purposes. For the ready reference of this Court, paragraph 10 of the said judgment is extracted as under: “10 The High Court also appears to have misread Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. All that Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides is that the owner of a motor vehicle cannot use the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place without a permit. Section 66, therefore, merely prevents use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle without a permit. It does not prohibit driving of such a vehicle on a public road. The vehicle can be driven on a public road so long as it is not used as a transport vehicle. To take an extreme example, the owner of such a vehicle may use that vehicle for taking his family out for a picnic. Section 66 will not bar such a use. It is thus clear that even in the absence of a permit the vehicle remains a transport vehicle which is capable of being used on a road so long as the vehicle has a valid certificate of fitness and a valid registration certificate. In such cases it has tobe 9 presumed that such a vehicle has been "kept for use" irrespective of whether or not it was actually used on the road.” 12.
Arguments
: Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Neha Baid, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhinav Patekar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04.09.2025 1. This is an appeal by the owner of the offending truck against the award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No.39 of 2016, in which compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- has been granted in favour of the claimants fastening liability upon the insurance company. 2. The case facts, briefly stated, are as follows that the respondents No. 1 to 3, being the parents and sister of the deceased Ku. Archana Joshi, filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") seeking compensation of ₹19.58 lakhs for her untimely death. Respondents No. 4 and 5 were the driver and owner, respectively, of the offending vehicle, a truck bearing registration No. CG-07-C- 4897, which was insured with the appellant. As per the averments 3 in the claim petition, on 31.12.2015 at around 9:45 AM, Ku. Archana Joshi was commuting on a two-wheeler to her workplace via the service road towards Power House when, near Telhanala Service Road, Zone No. 1, Khursipar, the offending vehicle, allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 4, collided with her, resulting in severe head injuries and her death on the spot. The incident was reported to the local police station, leading to registration of Crime No. 449/2016 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC against respondent No. 4. 3. It was further pleaded that the deceased was 18 years old, held a diploma in hospitality management, and was earning ₹6,000 per month. Notices were issued to all respondents, and while respondents No. 4 and 5 denied all allegations in their written statement, they admitted that the vehicle was insured with the appellant and that respondent No. 4 held a valid driving licence. The appellant insurance company also filed a written statement, denying involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident, disputing the liability, and alleging breach of policy conditions, including non-possession of a valid driving licence by respondent No. 4 and absence of valid fitness and permit certificates for the vehicle. The income and occupation of the deceased were also disputed. Despite these defenses, the learned Claims Tribunal, without properly appreciating the factual matrix or conducting a thorough inquiry as mandated under Sections 168 and 169 of the Act, rejected the appellant's contentions and held that there was 4 no breach of insurance policy terms by respondent No. 5, thereby fastening liability on the appellant to pay compensation to respondents No. 1 to 3. The appellant had also filed an application under Section 170 of the Act, which was allowed by the Tribunal on 10.05.2017 (Annexure A/2), permitting the appellant to contest the claim on all available grounds. In compliance with Section 173 of the Act, the appellant deposited ₹25,000 (Annexure A/3) and now challenges the impugned award (Annexure A/1) as having been passed without due consideration of the legal and factual issues involved. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is bad in law, as it has been rendered in complete disregard of the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Sections 66, 149(2), 134(c), 168, and 169. The Tribunal failed to conduct a proper inquiry as contemplated under law and ignored the material contradictions in the pleadings and evidence of respondent nos. 4 and 5. It is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was a transport vehicle and was required to hold a valid and effective permit under Section 66 of the Act, which was never produced. The Tribunal wrongly relied upon the plea that the vehicle was being taken for repairs and thereby exempt from permit requirements, whereas Section 66(3) was not applicable to the present case. The respondents themselves amended their written statement belatedly to introduce the plea of vehicle repair, 5 which was neither substantiated by reliable documentary evidence nor supported by consistent testimony. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability on the appellant insurance company is contrary to record and unsustainable in law. 5. He avers that the learned Tribunal further erred in holding the appellant liable to satisfy the award despite clear breaches of policy conditions by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The evidence on record, including admissions in cross- examination, established that the vehicle was not in lawful use under a valid permit at the time of accident. The Tribunal also failed to appreciate that the alleged accident itself was not proved against the said vehicle beyond doubt, as respondents nos. 4 and 5 categorically denied its involvement. Moreover, the Tribunal erred in assessing compensation on inflated grounds by allowing 40% towards future prospects without proof of income of the deceased, thereby awarding an excessive and unjustified amount. The impugned award, therefore, suffers from serious legal infirmities, misappreciation of evidence, and erroneous application of law, and is liable to be set aside, exonerating the appellant insurance company from liability. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 (owner of the offending vehicle) submits that the vehicle in question was not being plied for any commercial or unauthorized purpose at the time of the incident, but was merely being driven for the purpose of 6 undergoing repairs. As such, there was no requirement of holding a valid permit under the Motor Vehicles Act for using the vehicle on the road for such limited and non-commercial purpose. It is further submitted that the plea of the appellant–insurance company regarding the absence of a valid permit or breach of policy conditions is misconceived and does not absolve the insurer from its liability. 7. In support of her submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Ors. v. Bijaya C. Tripathy 1 , which, according to her, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and supports the contention that the use of the vehicle for repair- related movement does not attract the requirement of a transport permit, and hence no breach of policy conditions can be attributed to Respondent No. 5. To strengthen the submission he further relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gohar Mohammed Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors 2 . Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited & Ors. 3 reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be 1 (2004) 7 SCC 139 2 (2023) 4 SCC 381 3 (2018) 7 SCC 558 7 just and proper compensation in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record documents with utmost caution.
Decision
In view of the above discussion and considering the facts of the case, the evidence set forth by the parties, and the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened liability upon the insurance company, and no ground for interference is made out in appeal. The impugned award is neither perverse nor illegal. Consequently, the judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is hereby affirmed. 13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Saxena Sd/Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE