New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Rakesh Sinha

¶1

1

¶2

MAC No. 293 of 2019

¶3

2026:CGHC:16338

¶4

Digitally ANKITKUMARSINGH signedbyANKITKUMAR SINGH

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MAC No. 293 of 2019

¶8

New India Insurance Company Limited, Office Raipur D.O III (460700) 2^nd Floor RDA Building Bajrang Market GE Road Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Authorized Signatory, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

Rakesh Sinha S/o Jivrakhan Sinha, Aged About 32 Years;

¶12

Smt. Anita Sinha W/o Rakesh Sinha, Aged About 28 Years;

¶13

Minor Tikendra Sinha S/o Rakesh Sinha Aged About 9 Years, Through Natural Guardian Father Rakesh Sinha S/o Jivrakhan Sinha, All above are R/o Village “Belar” P.S. “Fingeshwar” District“Gariyaband”, Chhattisgarh............(Claimants).

¶14

Pashant Das (Dead) Throughr Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 24-11-2025.

¶15

(a) Mr. Sushant Das S/o Mr. Samir Das Aged About 40 Years;

¶16

(b) Mr. Sudip Das S/o Mr. Samir Das Aged About 37 Years;

¶17

(c) Mr. Subhrat Das S/o Mr. Samir Das, Aged About 35 Years;

¶18

All above are R/o Block No. 7, Ward Number 12, Mana Camp, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶19

2

¶20

MAC No. 293 of 2019

¶21

Samir Das (Dead) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 2411-2025.

¶22

(a) Mr. Sushant Das S/o Mr. Samir Das Aged About 40 Years; (b) Mr. Sudip Das S/o Mr. Samir Das, Aged About 37 Years; (c) Mr. Subhrat Das S/o Mr. Samir Das, Aged About 35 Years; All above are R/o Block No. 7, Ward Number 12, Mana Camp, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

For Appellant :- Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate.

¶25

For Respondent No.5 :- Mr. Anand Bajaj, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate

¶26

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board

¶27

09.04.2026

¶28

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 30.08.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 17/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants’ application and awarded a sum of 5,00,000/-₹ by fastening the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company.

¶29

Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that driver of the offending vehicle did not have the valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, therefore, Insurance

¶30

3

¶31

MAC No. 293 of 2019

¶32

Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.

¶33

Mr. Anand Bajaj, learned counsel for respondent No.5, would support the impugned award and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein above and gone through the records precisely.

¶35

The Claims Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence has clearly recorded a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle did have the valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle which is apparent from the particulars of the driving licence vide Ex.P/2. From Ex.P/2, it appears that the driver of the offending vehicle did have the licence to drive the light motor vehicle and transport vehicle and PSV vehicle. As such, the finding of the Claims Tribunal is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and I do not find any merit in the instant appeal, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost(s).

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶38

Ankit

New India Insurance Company Limited v. Rakesh Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Insurance Company Limited v. Rakesh Sinha

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. Manjula Vs Kishore Rajwde

Laxan Bai Vs Ramadhar Yadav

Smt. Sunita Nirmalkar Vs Dhanraj Rajput

Smt. Rampyari Vs Rajesh

Smt. Kavita Bai Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Gouri Bai