Dismissed¶32

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. D. Vijya

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jul 2025MAC/558/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; MAC No. 558 of 2018; decided 11/07/2025 by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad; New India Assurance appeal against MACT Durg award dated 16.11.2017 (Claim Case No. 433/2016) of Rs. 34,90,144/- plus 6% interest; death of Scooty rider Ku. D. Sarswati in collision with Truck CG-04-HY-9773 on 10.12.2015; driver's valid and effective driving licence; insurer failed to prove driver unlicensed; liability fastened on insurer upheld; application under Order 41 Rule 27 rejected; claim petition under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act 1988; claimed Rs. 1,58,88,200/-; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company failed to prove that the driver was not having any valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident ¶31

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:32369

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 558 of 2018

¶7

1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited Divisional Office No.2, Jeewan Bima Marg, Pandari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional-Office Chauhan Estate, Beside Chandra Maurya Talkies, G.E.Road, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Truck No. Cg-04-Hy-9773), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

...Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Smt. D. Vijya Wd/o D. Ramna Rao Aged About 52 Years R/o Near Gandhi Vidyalaya, Balaji Nagar, Ward No.30, Zone-2, Sector-11, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - D.Ramna Rao S/o Late Moklingam Aged About 53 Years R/o Near Gandhi Vidyalaya, Balaji Nagar, Ward No.30, Zone-2, Sector-11, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - D. Santosh Kumar S/o D. Ramna Rao Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Gandhi Vidyalaya, Balaji Nagar, Ward No.30, Zone-2, Sector-11,

¶13

¶14

Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

4 - Nandkishor Ram Kewat S/o Magra Kewat Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Nagfani, P.S. Shisai, District Gumla (Jharkhand) C/o Amardeep Singh Bassi, S/o Gurucharan Singh, Bombay Ranchi Carrier, In Front Of S.B.I., Tattibandh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Truck No. Cg-04Hy-9773), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

5 - Pradeep Kumar S/o Mandrup Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o C/o Amardeep Singh Bassi, S/o Gurucharan Singh, Bombay Ranchi Carrier, In Front Of S.B.I., Tattibandh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Truck No. Cg-04-Hy-9773), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)	: None.

¶19

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

11/07/2025

¶22

The present is an Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 16.11.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 433/2016, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 34,90,144/- with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein.

¶23

¶24

Brief facts of the case, is that, on 10.12.2015, Ku. D. Sarswati was riding her Scooty bearing registration No. CG-07-AP-6258 on her way to BMY Charoda Railway duty when in front of Aarti Hotel she was hit from behind by a truck bearing registration No. CG-04-HY-9773, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 4. As a result of the accident, she sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment on 14.12.2015. Her parents and brother filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,58,88,200/against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the appellant herein Assurance Company. Respondents No. 4 and 5 (driver and owner of the truck) denied the allegations in their joint written statement, claiming that respondent No. 4 possessed a valid and effective driving license and that the vehicle was insured with the appellant, who would be liable for any compensation. The appellant Assurance Company, in its written statement, denied all claims and contended that if respondent No. 4 was found liable, the deceased should also be held partially negligent. They further alleged that respondent No. 4 did not have a valid and effective driving license and that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the insurance policy terms. Based on the pleadings and after due inquiry, the Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 34,90,144/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the

¶25

¶26

claim application until realization, in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3 and against respondents No. 4 & 5 and the appellant Assurance Company.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company respectfully submits that the present appeal has been preferred on the primary ground that the driver of the offending vehicle, at the time of the accident, was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence, which is a mandatory requirement under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He further submits that the absence of a valid licence constitutes a clear violation of the policy conditions agreed upon between the insured and the insurer. As per the settled position of law, if the driver is found to be unauthorized or unqualified to operate the vehicle involved in the accident, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured or satisfy any award passed against it. Therefore, the liability, if any, arising out of the impugned accident ought not to have been fastened upon the appellant company. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate this legal aspect and the evidentiary material on record, including the lack of documentary proof regarding the driver's valid and effective licence. In light of the foregoing, the impugned award deserves to be set aside or modified to the extent of exonerating the appellant insurance company from liability.

¶28

¶29

None for the respondents.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶31

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the contention raised by the insurance company and perusal of the evidence as well as from the perusal of the award it seems that the insurance company has failed to prove that the driver was not having any valid and effective driving license on the date of accident as such the Tribunal has rightly passed the award while fastening liability upon the insurance company. Though an application under Order 41 Rule 27 has been filed, however, there is no any cogent ground to entertain this application.

¶32

Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/insurance company is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed .

¶33

Records of the Claims Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶36

Raghu Jat

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. D. Vijya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. D. Vijya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Uttara Bai Vs Smt. Mala Kaushik

Chhanulal Dhivar Vs Ramprasad Barmate

Heera Vs Pravesh Choudhary

Laxminarayan Bhave Vs Mohan

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Tilkunwar Bai

Ramdev Patel Vs Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation