Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Toran @ Kantu Narayan Chakradhari

1 - Toran @ Kantu Narayan Chakradhari, S/o. Ramlal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o. Village Nawagaon (Dhimartikur), Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ……...(Claimant)

¶12

2 - Ankit Dubey, S/o. Pramod, Aged About 20 Years, R/o. Motihari, Rajesh Nagar, Thana And District Motihari, Bihar. Currently Residing At Gidam Naka, Maa Transport, Jagdalpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh..................(Driver)

¶13

3 - Swaroop Chand Khatri, S/o. Mohanlal, R/o. Maitri Sangh Kumbhar Para, Jagdalpur, Thana Bodhghat, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh............... (Owner)

¶14

4 - Bhisham Sahu, S/o. Udhoram Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Village Navagaon, Post Jhiriya, Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2

¶16

5 - Udhoram Sahu, S/o. Shaniram Sahu, Aged About 55 Years, R/o. Village Navagaon, Post Jhiriya, Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶17

6 - Iffco-Tokiyo General Insurance Company, Lalganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

--- Respondents

¶19

For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ashwell Franklin, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. P.K.Tulsyan with Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocates For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Swapnil Thawarey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R.Patankar, Advocate

¶20

&

¶21

MAC No. 2286 of 2019

¶22

Toran @ Kantu Narayan Chakradhari, S/o. Ramlal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o. Village - Nawagaon (Dhimartikur) Tahsil / District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶23

--- Appellant

¶24

Versus

¶25

1 - Ankit Dubey, S/o. Pramod Dubey, Aged About 20 Years, R/o. Motihari, Rajesh Nagar, Thana / District - Motihari, (Bihar ), At Present R/o. Geedam Naka, Ma Bastar Transport, Jagdalpur, Tahsil - Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Truck )

¶26

2 - Swarup Chandra Khatri, S/o. Mohanlal, R/o. Maitri Sangh, Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, Thana – Bodhghat, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of Truck )

¶27

3

¶28

3 - Branch Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E/8 EP/8RICO, Industrial Aria, Sitapura, Jaipur ( Rajasthan ) ( Address Wrongly Mentioned ) ( Insurer Of Truck )

¶29

4 - Bhisham Sahu, S/o. Udhoram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Village - Nawagaon, Post Jhiriya, Tahsil - Nagri, District– Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶30

5 - Udhoram Sahu, S/o. Shaniram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o. Village - Nawagaon, Post Jhiriya, Tahsil - Nagri, District– Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶31

6 - Iffko Tikio General Insurance Company, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, GE Road, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Pickup )

¶32

--- Respondents

¶33

For Appellant	: Mr. Ashwell Franklin, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	: Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate
For Respondent No.6	: Mr. Swapil Thawarey, Advocate on
	behalf of Mr. P.R.Patankar, Advocate

¶34

(Single Bench)

¶35

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶36

Order on Board

¶37

17.04.2026

¶38

Against the impugned award dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in Claim Case No.104/2015, the claimant has preferred MAC No.2286/2019 seeking a relief that the liability be fastened upon

¶39

the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation,

¶40

4

¶41

whereas the insurance company has preferred MAC No. 437/2020 that the liability may not be fastened upon him, as the insurance policy Ex.D-2 was a fake policy.

¶42

Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶43

Mr. Ashwell Franklin, learned counsel for the appellant (Toran @ Kantu Narayan Chakradhari) submits that the exoneration is bad and the liability be fastened upon the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation.

¶44

Mr. P.K.Tulsyan, learned counsel for the respondent (Swaroop Chand Khatri), owner of the vehicle, submits that the exoneration is bad and the insurance company be fastened the liability to pay the compensation.

¶45

Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, learned counsel for the appellant (Shriram General Insurance Company Limited) submits that the exoneration in different ground of fact remains that the policy Ex.D-2 is a fake policy, which was never issued to the owner of the vehicle for the period from 17.03.2014 to 16.03.2015 and the date of accident is 02.06.2014. As such, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation.

¶46

5

¶47

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

¶48

Though the insurance company has been exonerated, the liability has been fastened upon the owner of the vehicle. The insurance policy is Ex.D-2 for the period from 17.03.2014 to 16.03.2015 and Mr. Aalok Bhomiya, Law Officer of the insurance company, has clearly stated that such policy was never issued to the owner of the vehicle and in order to cause loss to the insurance company and to gain undue advantage, the fake policy was prepared by the owner of the vehicle. In the cross examination, he has clearly reiterated that the policy Ex.D-2 is fake policy and he has not taken any action except making statement before the Court. Inaction on the part of the insurance company to prosecute the person guilty and to brought the guilty person to book, the insurance company cannot be fastened liability when the responsible officer of the insurance company has made a statement before the Claims Tribunal that the policy is a fake policy. Neither the owner of the vehicle has been examined nor the evidence has been brought on record to establish that the policy was not a fake policy, it is policy duly issued. In that view of the matter, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation and exoneration by the Claims Tribunal to

¶49

6

¶50

pay the compensation though on different ground is maintained. Consequently, both the appeal of insurance company & claimant are hereby disposed of. The owner of the vehicle will deposit the amount of compensation within a period of 45 days from today.

¶51

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶52

Ashok

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Toran @ Kantu Narayan Chakradhari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Toran @ Kantu Narayan Chakradhari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Comany Limited Vs Minor Gourav Kant Sahu

Anoj Kujur Vs Dharamdas Annu Sahu

Anil Kumar Suryavanshi Vs Manish Kumar Dehari

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Fagnuram Yadav

Tulsi Bai Vs Trilok Kumar Bharti

Deepak Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh