1. Smt. Shakuntala Nareti W/o Vedram Nareti, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Shanti Nagar v. 1
Case Details
1 SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.04.28 15:42:49 +0530 2025:CGHC:18861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1201 of 2018 1. Smt. Shakuntala Nareti W/o Vedram Nareti, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Shanti Nagar, Tahsil Thana And District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1. Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Late Ramudas Manikpuri, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village And Post Govindpur , Thana And Tahsil Kanker District U B Kanker Chhattisgarh. 2. Jhanakdas , Aged About 5 Years, Being Minor Through Mother
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Savitri Bai, Aged About 25 Years, W/o Late Ramudas Manikpuri, R/o Village And Post Govindpur , Thana And Tahsil Kanker District U B Kanker Chhattisgarh. 3. Kartikdas S/o Milandas Manikpuri, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village And Post Govindpur , Thana And Tahsil Kanker District U B Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Sukhani Bai Kartikdas Manikpuri , R/o Village And Post Govindpur , Thana And Tahsil Kanker District U B Kanker Chhattisgarh. 5. Milandas S/o Itwaridas Manikpuri, Aged About 76 Years, R/o Village And Post Govindpur, Thana And Tahsil Kanker District U B Kanker Chhattisgarh (Claimants). 6. Suresh Mendavi S/o Naval Singh Mandavi Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Pusvada Thana And Tahsil Kanker District U B Kanker Chhattisgarh (Driver ). 7. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited , Through Its Branch Manager Branch Office, M B Trade Center, Iind Floor, Near 2 Gandhi Chowk, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Insurer). --- Respondents MAC No. 1245 of 2018 1. Smt. Shakuntala Nareti W/o Vedram Nareti, Aged About 51 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Tahsil Thana And District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ( Owner’s Wife). ---Appellant Versus 1. Satendra Jurri S/o Devendra Jurri, Aged About 19 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village And Post Govindpur, Tahsil Thana And District U B Kanker Chhattisgarh ( Claimant ). 2. Suresh Mandavi Naval Singh Mandavi Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Pusvada, Tahsil , Thana And District U B Kanker Chhattisgarh ( Driver ). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office, M B Trade Center, Iind Floor Near Gandhi Chowk, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ( Insurer ). --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Alok Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the Appellant in both the appeals. For Respondent no.7 : Ms Veethika Choubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate in MAC No. 1201/2018. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Veethika Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate in MAC No. 1245/2018. For Other Respondents: None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Judgment Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal o n Board 25 / 04 / 2025 3 1. As these appeals have been preferred by the Owner of the vehicle which was involved in a same accident, they are heard
Decision
and disposed of by this common order. 2. These are owner’s appeal against the award dated 19.06.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker, District – U.B. Kanker (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Cases No. 53/2017 & 52/2017. In MAC No. 1201/2018 3. In MACC No. 53/2017, as against compensation of Rs.34,20,000/- claimed by the respondents No.1 to 5/claimants by filing claim application under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth ‘the Act’) for death of Ramudas in the motor accident on 18.12.2016, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,11,918/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. In MAC No. 1245/2018 4. In MACC No. 52/2017, as against compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- claimed by the respondent No.1/claimant by filing claim application under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth ‘the Act’) for the injury sustained by respondent No.1/Satendra Jurri in the motor accident on 18.12.2016, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,04,415/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum till its actual payment. 5. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence, held that 4 the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero bearing registration No. CG-19-BF-0161 by its driver Suresh Mandavi, i.e. respondent No.6 in MAC No. 1201/2018 and respondent No. 2 in MAC No. 1245/2018; Ramudas (deceased) in MAC No. 1201/2018 sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment and injured Satendra Jurri in MAC No. 1245/2018 sustained grievous injuries in the said accident; further, the Tribunal found that there was breach of conditions of the policy as the owner of the offending vehicle (Bolero) which is registered as a taxi vehicle did not have a valid permit on the date of the accident i.e., 18.12.2016, and therefore, National Insurance Company Limited exonerated for payment of compensation; the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle held liable for payment of compensation; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submits that the learned Claims tribunal found that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligently driving of the driver (Suresh Mandavi) which is an erroneous finding. He next submits that the learned tribunal ought to have considered that fitness certificate had been produced before the claims Tribunal which has been issued by the competent authority. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastened the liability on the appellant/owner for payment of compensation and exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay 5 compensation only on the ground that the offending vehicle was not having a valid permit; therefore, these appeals may be allowed and the appellant/owner is liable to be exonerated. 7. Learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company, on the other hand, supported the award impugned and submitted: in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from liability, which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 9. Learned Tribunal found in para 11 and 12 of the award impugned that Prakash Chandra Dhruv, Assistant Grade II in the District Transport Office has been examined on behalf of the insurance company, who has clearly stated in his cross- examination that the offending vehicle has been registered as a Maxi cab (taxi) by his transport office in the name of Vedram Nareti. He also admitted that the permit for the offending vehicle CG-19-BF-0161 9 (maxi cab) has not been issued by his Office as on the date of accident i.e., 18.12.2016 and also produced Ex.D-01 (RC book) and Ex.D-02 in this regard. Further, GR Dhruv has also been examined on behalf of Insurance Company, who has also stated in his cross- examination that the said Bolero vehicle ( registered as maxi cab) has been insured by his company from 05.10.2016 to 04.10.2017 in the name of Vedram as an insurance policy under Ex.D.3 but it is necessary to have a permit to drive the 6 said vehicle which has not been issued on the date of accident i.e., 18.12.2016. Therefore, it was held that the vehicle was driving in breach of policy conditions and neither any witnesses nor any documents have been produced by the owner to prove that the driver was driving the said vehicle without any breach of policy conditions. 10. Now, the question arises whether in the absence of valid permit to the transport/commercial vehicle at the time of accident is a fundamental breach? 11. This issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 wherein, in the absence of a valid and effective permit, considering the offending vehicle was driven in breach of policy conditions, exonerated the insurance company to its liability for payment of compensation. 12. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit on the date of accident i.e. 18.12.2016. Thus, in the light of the above judgments, it is found that the offending vehicle was being operated in violation of the insurance policy condition as the owner of the offending vehicle (Bolero) which is registered as a taxi vehicle did not have a valid permit. Therefore, the insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. 13. In view of the above, the findings of the Tribunal are correct on the basis of the evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference. 14. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.