Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company v. 1
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.04.01 14:29:41 +0530 2025:CGHC:14453 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1302 of 2022 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 5th Floor National Corporate Park, Opposite Maruti Business, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh................(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bearing Reg. No. C.G. 05 Al 5322) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Smt. Hemlata Jatwar W/o Late Bhimrao Jatwar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Birra, Police Station Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2. Aditi Kumari Jatwar D/o Late Bhimrao Jatwar Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Birra, Police Station Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
3. Akansha Jatwar D/o Late Bhimrao Jatwar Aged About 13 Years Res. No.3 Being Minor Through Her Guardian Mother Smt. Hemlata Jatwar W/o Late Bhimrao Jatwar, R/o Village Birra, Police Station Birra, Tahsil Chhattisgarh................. Bamhnidih, (Claimants) Janjgir-Champa, District- 4. Purnima Jatwar S/o Late Hetram Jatwar Aged About 66 Years R/o Parsadih (Bilaigarh), Police Station And Tahsil Bailaigarh, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 5. Deepak Kumar Kalani S/o Raj Kumar Kalani R/o H. No. 106 (2), Aamapara Road, Salhewar Para Ward No. 11, Dhamtari, Police Station Kotwali Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh- 493773................. (Offending Vehicle Bearing Reg. No. C.G. 05 Al 5322) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Chitram Sahu, Advocate 2 For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate along with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 26-03-2025 1) By way of this appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the learned First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) in MACT No. 14/2022 dated 02.08.2022, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim case filed by the claimants. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 28.12.2021, the deceased Bhimrao Jatwar along with his wife, namely Hemlata Jatwar (respondent No. 1) were going to Village Bedma (Fundair) from Village Birra on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-11-CH-5002. At about 3:00 O’clock, when they reached Dhamtari Christian Hospital, a black colored Scorpio bearing registration No. CG-05-AL-5322 driven by respondent No. 5 (driver-cum-owner) rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of Bhimrao Jatwar, who along with respondent No. 1 sustained multiple injuries. They were taken to the Dhamtari Christian Hospital for treatment, where Bhimrao Jatwar died during the course of treatment on 29.12.2021. It is pleaded that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 38 years and was earning Rs. 48,881/- p.m. by serving as a Lecturer in Govt. High School, Fundair, District- Kondagaon. An FIR was also lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver filed a reply and denied the averments made in the claim case. It was stated that the vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance 3 Company. The appellant/Insurance Company filed a reply and denied material facts and took a plea to the effect that the deceased was driving the vehicle negligently, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective Driving License and it was driven in breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The learned Tribunal framed issues and partly allowed the application and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 92,84,100/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application. The claimants have filed a cross-appeal according to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC for enhancement of compensation along with the application for condonation of delay. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that in reply it was specifically pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license. He further submits that on 21.07.2022 the claimants closed their evidence and the case was set for evidence of the Insurance Company and the driver. On 02.08.2022, the Insurance Company sought time to lead evidence in order to prove the fact that the driver did not have a valid driving license. He contends that the learned Tribunal turned down the prayer made by the Insurance Company and on the same date, the award was passed. He referred to para 15 of the award wherein it is observed that “Respondent No. 2 i.e. Insurance Company has taken a plea of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, so onus is upon it to prove the same, but company has not produced any evidence in this respect and in absence of evidence, on the basis of pleading only, it cannot be said that respondent No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of said accident.” He further 4 contends that the learned Tribunal did not allow the Insurance Company to lead evidence and recorded findings against it. He argues that whether the driver had a valid Learner’s License or not is a matter of fact and the same can be proved by adducing evidence and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have afforded an opportunity to the appellant. He further argues that with regard to the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal considered the age to be 38 years on the basis of the Post-Mortem report whereas according to the service book, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was more than 40 years and this fact has not been considered by the learned Tribunal while passing the award. He would pray to remit back the matter to the learned Tribunal to decide it afresh after affording the opportunity to the Insurance Company to lead evidence. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants would submit that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the Insurance Company to lead evidence but no steps were taken. He would further submit that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a Learner’s Driving License and this fact was not disputed by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal, therefore, a finding was recorded by the Tribunal vide order dated 02.08.2022 and the opportunity to lead evidence was not granted. He contends that with regard to the age of the deceased, the Insurance Company could not produce clinching evidence, therefore, the learned Tribunal took shelter of the Post-Mortem report and the driving license of the deceased to consider the age. He further contends that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned award and prays to dismiss the appeal. 5 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6) A perusal of the order dated 21.07.2022 would show that the claimants closed their evidence and the opportunity was extended to the Insurance Company and the driver to lead evidence and the case was set for further hearing on 02.08.2022. On 02.08.2022, the counsel for the Insurance Company sought adjournment with a prayer to lead evidence in order to prove the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid Learner’s License but the learned Tribunal rejected the contention and closed the right of the Insurance Company to lead evidence and on the very date, the award was passed. 7) With regard to the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has considered the age based on the Post-Mortem report and the Driving License. The Driving License was issued to the deceased according to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act after verification of documents, therefore, entries made in respect of the Date of Birth or age in the Driving License of the deceased cannot be doubted and therefore, the contention made by Mr. Sharma in this regard appears to be misplaced and is hereby rejected. 8) However, this Court is of the view that the matter should be remitted back to the learned Tribunal reserving liberty in favor of the appellant herein to lead evidence regarding the validity of the Learner’s License of the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants would also be at liberty to raise all available grounds before the learned Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 02.08.2022 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide it afresh after affording 6 only one opportunity to the Insurance Company to lead evidence in order to prove the genuineness or validity of the Learner’s License of the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned Tribunal is also directed to grant sufficient opportunity to the Insurance Company, driver and claimants before passing the award afresh. 10) Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 22nd April, 2025. The records of the concerned Tribunal be sent back forthwith. The compensation amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall be adjusted against the award, if any, which shall be passed ultimately by the learned Tribunal. Ajinkya Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE