High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35905 AFR HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.07.26 11:50:24 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1428 of 2022 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 3rd Floor, Saraswati Mandir (Oppsite Marathi Grant Sangarh, Opp. Zilla Parishad Office, Subhash Road, Thane (M.H.) Local Office- D Commercial Complex, T.P. Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.), In This Appeal Represented Through Incharge, Legal Hub, Legal Hub Office, Rama Trade Centre, 1st Floor, Opp. Rajeev Plaza, Near Old Bus Stant, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pin- 495001 … Appellant versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Renu Anant W/o Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Anant Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Beltukri, Post Khasora, Police Outpost Pantora, Thana-Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address- C/o Pushpa Kurre, Dadarkhurd, Near Kankalin Mandir, Muncipal Corporation- Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Avantika Anant D/o-Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Anant Aged About 1 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother And Natural Guardian Respondent No. 1 Smt. Renu 2 Anant, W/o-Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Anant, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Beltukri, Post Khasora, Police Outpost Pantora, Thana-Baloda, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address- C/o Pushpa Kurre, Dadarkhurd, Near Kankalin Mandir, Muncipal Corporation-Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) 3 - Komal Prasad S/o Chheduram Anant Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Beltukri, Post Khasora, Police Outpost Pantora, Thana-Baloda, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address- C/o Pushpa Kurre, Dadarkhurd, Near Kankalin Mandir, Muncipal Corporation-Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) 4 - Kushi Bai W/o Komal Anant Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Beltukri, Post Khasora, Police Outpost Pantora, Thana-Baloda, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address- C/o Pushpa Kurre, Dadarkhurd, Near Kankalin Mandir, Muncipal Corporation-Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) 5 - Ku. Shivangi Anant D/o-Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Anant Aged About 09 Months, Minor, Represented Through Mother And Natural Guardian Res. No. 1 Smt. Renu Anant, W/o Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Anant, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Beltukri, Post Khasora, Police Outpost Pantora, Thana-Baloda, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address- C/o Pushpa Kurre, Dadarkhurd, Near Kankalin Mandir, Muncipal Corporation-Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) 6 - Ankit Kurre S/o-Sangan Kurre Aged About 19 Years R/o-Bankimongra, P.S.-Bankimongra, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) (Driver) 3 7 - Kuldeep Kurre S/o-Sangan Kurre Aged About 30 Years R/o House No-13/04 Shakti Chowk, Brahmanpara, Bankimongra, Thana Bankimongra, Tehsil Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) (Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents 6 & 7 : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate 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 03/09/2022 passed by Learned 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Korba in Claim Case No. 8/2020, whereby the liability of payment of compensation in favour of the claimants (respondents No. 1 to 5 herein) has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 06/12/2019, deceased Mahendra Kumar Anant and Uttam Kurre (PW-2) were returning home after duty on his motorcycle when a Pickup vehicle bearing Registration No. CG 12/AW/5231 came in front of them and on account of rash and negligent 4 driving of respondent No. 6 herein, accident occurred due to which Mahendra Kumar Anant died on the spot. Incident was reported before the Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa and FIR (Ex. P/1) was registered against respondent No. 6 (driver of the offending vehicle). Respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants filed a claim application before the Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in which learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 20,72,084/- as compensation with 6 % interest per annum and fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit on the date of the accident as required under Section 66(1) of the Act of 1988, therefore, the appellant (Insurance Company) ought to have been exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 6 and 7 would support the impugned award and submit that the aforesaid ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant was though raised before the Claims Tribunal but no evidence was led in this regard, therefore, the appellant (Insurance Company) has rightly been held responsible for payment of compensation in favour of the claimants. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the record. 6. A careful perusal of the record would show that the appellant (Insurance Company) raised two pleas before the Claims Tribunal, firstly, that the offending vehicle is a light goods vehicle whereas respondent No. 6 (driver) was only having the driving license of light motor vehicle and secondly, that on the date of the accident, respondent No. 6 did not have a valid permit and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of insurance policy. 7. With regard to the first plea taken by the appellant (Insurance Company) that the offending vehicle is a light goods vehicle whereas respondent No. 6 (driver) was only having the driving license of light motor vehicle, learned Claims Tribunal has held that the offending vehicle is a light goods vehicle and weighs less than 7500 kgs and further relying upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1 has held that according to Sections 2(21), 2(15) and 2(48) of the Act of 1988, transport vehicles have not been separated from light motor vehicles. Transport vehicles weighing less than 7500 kg fall under the category of light motor vehicles and since respondent No. 6 had valid driving license for driving light motor 1 (2017) 14 SCC 663 6 vehicle on the date of accident, it cannot be held that he was driving the offending vehicle in violation of the terms of insurance policy. 8. The decision rendered in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has been upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rambha Devi and others2 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 light of the principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and Rambha Devi (supra), Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that respondent No. 6 had valid driving license for driving the offending vehicle on the date of the accident which in my considered opinion is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 2 (2025) 3 SCC 95 10. So far as the second plea of respondent No. 6 (driver of the 7 offending vehicle) not having valid permit on the date of the accident is concerned, though it was taken in the written statement by the appellant (Insurance Company) but it was not pressed as no evidence was led to prove the same. Assistant Manager from the office of the appellant (Insurance Company) namely Mr. K.G. Sunil Kumar (DW-1) was examined as witness before the Tribunal, but he did not state that respondent No. 6 herein did not have a valid permit on the date of the accident, as required and confined his evidence only to the breach of terms of insurance policy by respondent No. 6 with regard to driving of light goods vehicle and as such, there is no evidence available on record to hold that the offending vehicle was being plied without there being valid permit in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, I do not find any good ground in this appeal warranting interference with the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, the instant appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Harneet Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge