Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Rajnath Nareti S/o Late Sukhdev Nareti Aged About 54 Years R/o Village
Case Details
1 HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.07.25 17:35:32 +0530 2025:CGHC:35944 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 737 of 2022 The Oriental General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office - Adjoining Lic Building Near Railway Station, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh … Appellant versus 1 - Rajnath Nareti S/o Late Sukhdev Nareti Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Penopara, Hatkondal, P.S. - Bhanupratappur, District - North Bastar Kanker, Present Address Village Kustikur, P.S. And District - North Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vipin Kumar Jain S/o Goutam Chand Jain Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Bagolipara Dallirajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Satish Kumar Jain S/o Goutam Chand Jain Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Bagolipara Dallirajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 24.07 .2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) challenging the impugned award dated 28/03/2022 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District kanker in Claim Case No. 17/2021, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,88,647/- has been awarded in favour of respondent No. 1 herein (claimant) and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 24/12/2018, respondent No. 1 (claimant) was driving his motorcycle along with his wife Narsobai sitting as a pillion rider when a chhoti hathi (pickup vehicle) bearing Registration No. CG 24-B 0108 came from front and on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 herein, hit the motorcycle of the claimant due to which he suffered serious injuries on his hands, legs and face and he was taken to Steel City Medical Centre Multi Speciality Hospital, Durg wherein he was subjected to surgeries and provided 3 treatment. He filed an application under 166(1) read with Section 140(1) of the Act of 1988 before the Claims Tribunal stating that due to the accident, he had suffered greivous injuries in his skull and had suffered permanent disability and is no longer able to work as a Labour, which was opposed by the appellant (Insurance Company) as well as respondents No. 2 and 3 herein (driver and owner of the offending vehicle). 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciation of oral and documentary eivdence on record, held that on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 (driver), accident took place in which respondent No. 1 (claimant) suffered 40 % permanent disability and since it could not be proved that respondent No. 2 was driving the offending vehicle in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, directed the appellant (Insurance Company) to pay compensation of Rs. 7,88,647/- to respondent No. 1 (claimant) with an interest of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the application i.e. 01/01/2021. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that respondent No. 2 did not have valid driving license on the date of the accident and as such, since he was driving the offending vehicle in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the liability of payment of compensation 4 ought to have been fastened upon him and not the appellant (Insurance Company). He would further submit that 40 % permanent disability suffered by respondent No. 1 (claimant) should not have been taken as 40% loss of earning capacity, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be reduced. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 would submit that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely justified in holding that respondent No. 2 had valid driving license on the date of the accident, therefore, the appellant (Insurance Company) has rightly been fastened with the liability of payment of compensation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the record. 7. The first plea raised by the appellant (Insurance Company) is that on the date of the accident, respondent No. 2 (driver of the offending vehicle) did not have a valid driving license as he had a license for driving light motor vehicle whereas the offending vehicle would come under the category of light good vehicle, therefore, the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. which has been answered in negative by learned Claims Tribunal holding that the offending vehicle weighed less than 7500 kgs and therefore, the driving 5 license of respondent No. 1 was valid for driving the offending vehicle and the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy has not been proved by the appellant (Insurance Company). 8. The decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rambha Devi and others1 may be noticed herein profitably wherein it has clearly been held that a driver holding a license for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) of the Act of 1988 for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a “transport vehicle” wihout needing additional authorisation under Section 10(2)(e) of the Act specifically for the “transport vehicle” class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. 9. Thus, in my considered opinion, learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely justified in answering the aforesaid plea raised by the appellant (Insurance Company) in negative holding that the offending vehicle weighed less than 7500 kgs and therefore, the driving license of respondent No. 1 was valid for driving the offending vehicle and the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy has not been proved by the appellant (Insurance Company). 1 (2025) 3 SCC 95 10. The second argument raised by learned counsel for the 6 appellant is that respondent No. 1 (claimant) suffered 40 % permanent disability on account of the accident, therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought not have accepted the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 40% as well. However, Learned Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that respondent No. 1 (claimant) has made a statement before the Court that prior to the incident, he worked as a Labourer but on account of greivous injury having been suffered by him on his head, he has completely been disabled to work as a Labourer and has suffered 40% permanent disability, which has not at all been questioned by the appellant (Insurance Company) in cross-examination. The said finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not find any merit in this appeal. 11. Accordingly, the instant appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Harneet Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge