1 - Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Bramh Road Near Kumkum Hotel v. 1 - Sulochana Wd/o Late Sonvir Malar @ Sanvir Aged About 37 Years Oc
Case Details
1 (MAC No. 1159 of 2022) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.08.12 11:24:20 +0530 2025:CGHC:39936 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1159 of 2022 1 - Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Bramh Road Near Kumkum Hotel Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) Through Authorized Signatory Officer In-Charge T.P. Hub United India Insurance Compay Limited, T.P. Hub/dvisional Office, Lic Building, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Sulochana Wd/o Late Sonvir Malar @ Sanvir Aged About 37 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Rehda (Bagichapara), P.S. Kusmi, Tehsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) Presently R/o Muktipara, Near Atal Awas Post Fundurdihari P.S. Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manujit S/o Late Sonvir Malar @ Sanvir Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Rehda (Bagichapara), P.S. Kusmi, Tehsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) Presently R/o Muktipara, Near Atal Awas Post Fundurdihari P.S. Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Satyendra Kumar S/o Late Sonvir Malar @ Sanvir Aged About 14 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother I.E. Respondent No. 1 Namely Sulochana, R/o Village Rehda (Bagichapara), P.S. Kusmi, Tehsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Presently R/o Muktipara, Near Atal Awas Post Fundurdihari P.S. Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Minor Ku. Lilavati D/o Late Sonvir Malar @ Sanvir Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother I.E. Respondent No. 1 Namely Sulochana, R/o Village Rehda (Bagichapara), P.S. Kusmi, Tehsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Presently R/o Muktipara, Near Atal Awas Post Fundurdihari P.S. Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Chhattisgarh) 2 (MAC No. 1159 of 2022) 5 - Minor Suraj S/o Late Sonvir Malar @ Sanvir Aged About 9 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother I.E. Respondent No. 1 Namely Sulochana, R/o Village Rehda (Bagichapara), P.S. Kusmi, Tehsil Shankargarh, District Presently R/o Balrampur Ramanujganj Muktipara, Near Atal Awas Post Fundurdihari P.S. Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Santan Malar S/o Late Tulsi Aged About 62 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Rehda (Bagichapara), P.S. Kusmi, Tehsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) Presently R/o Muktipara, Near Atal Awas Post Fundurdihari P.S. Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
7 - Smt. Phulmaniya W/o Santan Malar, Aged About 60 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Rehda (Bagichapara), P.S. Kusmi, Tehsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) Presently R/o Muktipara, Near Atal Awas Post Fundurdihari P.S. Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 8 - Zibrail Khan S/o Ismail Khan, Aged About 39 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Chumra, P.O. And P.S. Vijaynagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) C/o Smt. Daya Kishori Minz, Aged 56 Years, W/o Leius Minz, Occupation Vehicle Owner R/o Village Gautampur (Bangalapara) P.O. And P.S. Chando, Tehsil Samri (Kusmi), District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) 9 - Smt. Dayakishori Minz, W/o Leius Minz Aged About 56 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Gautampur (Banglapara) P.O. And P.S. Chando, Tehsil Samri, (Kusmi) District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant :- Mr. Bhola Nath Nande, Advocate For Respondents :- None. SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 08.08.2025 1. The appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 3 (MAC No. 1159 of 2022) (for short “Act of 1988”) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, by which compensation amount to the tune of Rs.12,46,000/- along with 7% interest rate from the date of claim application has been awarded to the claimants for the death of Sonveer Malar, aged about 39 years. 2. Mr. Bhola Nath Nande, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the insurance company despite the fact that the offending vehicle was plied in the state of Chhattisgarh without any valid permit. He would further submit that the Claims Tribunal did not grant sufficient opportunity to the insurance company to adduce the evidence and to file permit. As such, the insurance company be exonerated from the liability to pay the amount of compensation. 3. None for the respondents. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on records with utmost circumspection. 4 (MAC No. 1159 of 2022) 5. The insurance company in para 27 of its written statement has taken a half-hearted plea that the offending vehicle was being plied without a valid permit and in breach of the insurance policy, however, no specific plea has been taken on behalf of the insurance company with regard to the permit. Although, one Prateek Shrivastava (NAW-1), Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Ambikapur has been examined and he has admitted that any vehicle having a valid national permit can be plied pan-India and that the offending vehicle on the date of accident did have a valid national permit but the same was not valid for the State of Chhattisgarh. However, the learned Claims Tribunal has not accepted the above plea and has categorically recorded that the offending vehicle had a valid and effective permit on the date of accident and there was no breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and proceeded to fasten the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the insurance company. As such the findings recorded by the insurance company, in my considered opinion, is a correct finding of facts based on the materials available on record. 6. So far as the submission of the insurance company that it was not given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence 5 (MAC No. 1159 of 2022) and file permit is concerned, a careful perusal of the record would show that the case was listed before the Tribunal for evidence of the insurance company on 04.03.2022, 17.03.2022, 26.03.20222, 06.04.2022, 27.04.2022, 06.05.2022, 17.06.2022, 07.07.2022 & 13.07.2022 and ultimately, after long adjournments sought by the insurance company, the Administrative Officer of the insurance company namely, Prateek Shrivastava (NAW-01) was examined on 20.07.2022. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that sufficient opportunity was not granted to the insurance company by the Claims Tribunal to adduce evidence. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain the instant appeal. 7. This appeal deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!