Dismissed

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Savita Miller

Chhattisgarh HC28 Jan 2026MAC/1649/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance appeals challenging a motor accident compensation award on grounds of breach of policy conditions: driver's licence validity, unauthorised passengers, and absence of permit/fitness. The High Court held breaches were unsubstantiated, followed Mukund Dewangan on LMV licence validity, found compensation just, and dismissed both appeals.

What did the court decide?

Both insurance appeals dismissed; Tribunal award upheld; no costs.

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Savita Miller — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.02.04 18:38:18 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:5076

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1665 of 2018

¶7

United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Amar Complex, Jeevan Beema Marg, Pandari Shahar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

--- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Victor @ Vikky Miller S/o Stanely Miller Aged About 40 Years,

¶11

2 - Savita Miller W/o Victor @ Vikky Miller Aged About 35 Years

¶12

Both are R/o Village Maantola, P.O. P.S. And Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - Ajay Kumar @ Ajju Shende S/o Late Prakash Rao Shende Aged About 29 Years (Owner And Driver Of The Vehicle), R/o Village And P.O. Yadavpara, Mohla, P.S. And Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgoan Chhattisgarh.

¶14

--- Respondents

¶15

MAC No. 1649 of 2018

¶16

United India Insurance Company Limited Through- Its Branch Manager, Branch- Office, Amar Complex, Jeevan Beema Marg, Pandari Shahar, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

--- Appellant

¶18

Versus

¶19

1 - Savita Miller W/o Victor @ Vikky Miller Aged About 35 Years R/oVillage- Maantola, P.O. P.S. And Tahsil Mohla, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

¶21

2 - Ajay Kumar @ Ajju Shende S/o Late Prakash Rao Shende, aged about 29 years, (Owner And Driver Of The Vehicle), R/o- Village And P.O.- Yadavpara, Mohla, P.S. And Tahsil Mohla, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

--- Respondents

¶23

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶24

For Appellant/Insurance :	Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of
Company	Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate
For Respondents :	None

¶25

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶26

Judgment on Board

¶27

29.01.2026

¶28

1. Since both the appeals arise out of same accident, they have been clubbed together, heard together and decided by this common judgment.

¶29

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the award dated 25.04.2018 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.44/2013 and Claim Case No.45/2013, respectively, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the respective claimants and awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- and Rs.81,000/-, respectively along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim applications till its realization and fastened the liability to

¶30

¶31

satisfy the amount of compensation upon the non-applicants therein.

¶32

3. Both the appeals being MAC No.1665/2018 and MAC No.1649/2018 have been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation as also breach of policy conditions.

¶33

4. Brief facts of both the cases, in a nutshell are that on 18.12.2012 at about 6:45 a.m., claimant No. 2, along with her minor daughter Ms. Gresy alias Tanya and one Jitendra, was travelling from village Mohla to Arjuni in a Bolero Maxi vehicle (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) for the purpose of purchasing vegetables. The said vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No. 1. When the vehicle reached a turning point just ahead of village Herkutumb on the Mohla Road, non-applicant No. 1 drove the vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and lost control of the same, as a result of which the vehicle struck against a tree, causing a serious accident.

¶34

5. In the said accident, claimant No. 2 sustained grievous injuries, including fracture of the right thigh and injuries to the left arm, whereas her minor daughter Ms. Gresy alias Tanya suffered serious internal injuries to both legs and chest. Due to the seriousness of the injuries, both were taken by 108 Ambulance to the Primary Health Centre, Mohla, where Ms. Gresy alias Tanya was examined by the doctors and declared dead. Claimant No. 2

¶35

¶36

was thereafter referred to the Government District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, where she remained admitted from 18.12.2013 to 21.12.2013 and was treated for a severe fracture of the right thigh, for which plaster was applied.

¶37

6. On lodging a report of the incident at Police Station Mohla, Crime No. 109/2012 was registered against non-applicant No. 1 for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court at Ambagarh Chowki. The final report also reveals that non-applicant No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and, accordingly, offence under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also found established against him.

¶38

7. Prior to the accident, claimant No. 2 was a healthy and hardworking woman earning her livelihood by selling vegetables and earning about Rs.500/- per day, amounting to approximately Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she was unable to work for about six months, resulting in loss of income. She also incurred expenses towards medical treatment and special diet and continues to suffer permanent disability on account of the fracture to the right thigh.

¶39

8. The deceased Ms. Gresy alias Tanya was the sole daughter of the claimants and was studying in Class-V at the Primary School, Mohla. She was a bright and meritorious student, actively

¶40

¶41

participating in sports and other extracurricular activities. The sudden and untimely death of their minor daughter has caused irreparable emotional, mental and future financial loss to the claimants, for which they claimed compensation under various permissible heads, including loss of future prospects and last rites.

¶42

9. Non-applicant No. 2/Insurance Company filed written statements in both claim cases denying liability, contending that the compensation claimed by the claimants was excessive and further asserting that non-applicant No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On the said ground, non-applicant No. 2 sought complete exoneration from liability.

¶43

10. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal, by award dated 25.04.2018 passed in Claim Case No. 44/2013 and Claim Case No. 45/2013, partly allowed the respective claim applications and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- and Rs.81,000/-, respectively, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim applications till realization, and fastened the liability to satisfy the said compensation upon the non-applicants therein.

¶44

11. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is

¶45

¶46

bad in law and contrary to the material available on record. It is contended that the appellant, by leading cogent documentary and oral evidence before the learned Tribunal, duly established that the offending vehicle was insured as a goods carrying commercial vehicle, as is evident from the Insurance Policy (Ex.D-1). On the date and time of the alleged accident, claimant No.2, along with her minor daughter Gresy alias Tanya and another person namely Jitendra, were travelling in the said vehicle as passengers/farepaying passengers, which is clearly impermissible under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, carrying unauthorised passengers in a goods vehicle amounts to a fundamental breach of policy conditions, absolving the appellant from liability.

¶47

12. It is further submitted that the appellant also proved that the vehicle was being plied without a valid permit and fitness certificate, in clear contravention of the statutory provisions as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Additionally, non-applicant No.1, who was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, was holding a driving licence valid only for Light Motor Vehicle, whereas the offending vehicle was a transport/commercial vehicle, and therefore he did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the relevant time. These violations cumulatively constitute a clear breach of policy conditions.

¶48

¶49

13. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise, considering that the deceased Gresy alias Tanya was aged about 9–10 years, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and beyond the permissible limits as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein the parents of a deceased minor child are entitled only to limited compensation. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and erroneously fastened the liability upon the appellant–Insurance Company despite established breaches of policy conditions. Hence, the impugned award, to the extent it fastens liability upon the appellant, deserves to be set aside or suitably modified. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Branch Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another v. Sitaram and Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 1452 to butters his submission.

¶50

14. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and perused the record of the claim cases carefully.

¶51

15. From perusal of the impugned awards, it transpires that while deciding issue No. 3 relating to breach of insurance conditions, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the burden of proof was upon the non-applicant Insurance Company. In order to discharge the said burden, the Insurance Company examined one Manoj Rai (NAW-1), Branch Manager, who deposed that the offending

¶52

¶53

vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company under Policy No. 190501/31/12/01/000010238 (Ex.D-1), which contained a condition requiring the driver to possess a valid and effective driving licence during the policy period. He further stated that the driver Ajay was holding a licence to drive a motorcycle with gear and that the insured vehicle was allegedly being driven without permit and fitness certificate. It was also alleged that the vehicle had seating capacity of only two persons and that more persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident, thereby violating the policy conditions.

¶54

16. The Insurance Company further examined Moreshwar Prasad Gilhare (NAW-2), Assistant Manager, who produced the driving licence of the driver Ajay (Ex.D-3) along with the investigator’s letter (Ex.D-4). According to the said licence, on the date of the incident, the driver held a licence to drive a motorcycle and light motor vehicle. Though it was argued on behalf of the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was a light goods/transport vehicle and, therefore, the driver was not authorised to drive the same, the learned Claims Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Civil Appeal No. 5826/2011, decided on 03.07.2017) and held that a person holding a light motor vehicle licence is competent to drive a light motor vehicle, whether transport or non-transport, and that no separate endorsement is required.

¶55

¶56

17. The learned Claims Tribunal further observed that although the Insurance Company alleged that unauthorised passengers were being carried in the offending vehicle and that the vehicle did not have a valid permit and fitness certificate, no cogent evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company to substantiate the said allegations. The RC book of the vehicle, which could have clarified the seating capacity, was not produced. It was also noted that the charge-sheet (Ex.P-1) did not include any offence under the Motor Vehicles Act relating to absence of permit, fitness or violation of policy conditions.

¶57

18. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence and discussion, the learned Claims Tribunal concluded that, on the date of the incident, the driver of the offending vehicle was in possession of a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle was not being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

¶58

19. Upon anxious consideration of the entire material available on record, the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly placed the burden of proving breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy upon the appellant–Insurance Company. Although the Insurance Company raised multiple defences regarding absence

¶59

¶60

of a valid and effective driving licence, unauthorised carriage of passengers, and lack of permit and fitness of the offending vehicle, the same have remained largely unsubstantiated. The evidence led by the Insurance Company falls short of establishing any fundamental breach of the policy conditions so as to absolve it from its statutory liability.

¶61

20. With regard to the validity of the driving licence, the material on record clearly demonstrates that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle on the date of the accident. The learned Claims Tribunal has correctly relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan (supra), wherein it has been authoritatively held that a person holding a light motor vehicle licence is competent to drive a transport vehicle of the same category and that no separate endorsement is required. The contention of the appellant– Insurance Company on this count, therefore, deserves outright rejection.

¶62

21. Similarly, the plea that unauthorised passengers were being carried in the offending vehicle has not been established by producing any cogent documentary evidence. The Registration Certificate, which alone could have conclusively demonstrated the seating capacity of the vehicle, was not placed on record by the Insurance Company. The persons travelling in the offending vehicle were not gratuitous passengers; rather, they were

¶63

¶64

vegetable vendors transporting vegetables in the vehicle and, therefore, cannot be termed as gratuitous passengers. Likewise, the allegation regarding the absence of a permit and fitness certificate is not supported by any reliable material. Even the charge-sheet does not disclose the commission of any offence under the Motor Vehicles Act on this count. The learned Claims Tribunal has, therefore, rightly disbelieved these contentions.

¶65

22. This Court further finds that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable, and has been assessed after taking into account the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the untimely death of the minor child, in accordance with settled principles governing grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. No perversity, illegality, or arbitrariness can be attributed to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal.

¶66

23. It is well settled that appellate interference with the findings of fact recorded by a Claims Tribunal is warranted only when such findings are perverse or based on no evidence. In the present case, the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and application of correct principles of law, and therefore do not call for any interference by this Court.

¶67

¶68

24. Accordingly, both the appeals being MAC No.1665/2018 and MAC No.1649/2018 filed by the appellant–Insurance Company are dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶69

25. The record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶72

Yogesh

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Savita Miller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Savita Miller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Alma Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A. K. Patre Vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Pramila Pandey

Smt. Savitri Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh