Dismissed¶28

Jhulbai v. Janakram

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jan 2026MAC/486/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

2026:CGHC:2718 (NAFR); Chhattisgarh HC, MAC No. 486 of 2021, decided 16/01/2026 by Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. Appeal under S.173 MV Act 1988 against MACT Janjgir-Champa award dated 02.08.2021 dismissing S.164 MV Act death claim of Rs.7,71,000/- by widow of Lalji Kashyap (accident 07.07.2019, unknown motorcycle). Insurer proved deceased's driving licence valid only upto 29.06.2013; driver-clause in policy (Rs.350/- premium, owner-driver cover Rs.15 lacs) barred compensation; Tribunal's dismissal upheld; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The driving licence issued in favour of the deceased was effective only till 29.06.2013, whereas the accident occurred on 07.07.2019; on the date of the accident the deceased did not have any valid and effective driving licence. ¶27

Jhulbai Vs Janakram — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.01.19 10:54:50 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:2718

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 486 of 2021

¶7

*** -** Jhulbai W/o Lalji Kashyap, Aged About 65 Years Caste Kashyap, R/o Nawapara, P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶8

… Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Janakram S/o Late Lalji Kashyap, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Nawapara, P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - IFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Manager, Branch Office, Third Floor, Shop No. 345-347 Lal Ganga, Shopping Mall G.E. Road Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

		... Respondents
For Appellant/Claimant	:	Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent No. Insurance Company	2/ :	Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	:	None, though served

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

¶13

16/01/2026

¶14

The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 82/2019 dated 02.08.2021, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant was dismissed.

¶15

¶16

The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.1 was registered owner of the vehicle-motorbike bearing registration No. CG-11/AR-9347. The vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2/Insurance Company. On 07.07.2019 at around 04:00 pm, deceased- Lalji Kashyap (husband of claimant and father of registered owner/respondent No.1) was returning from Village Chandipara to Nawapara along with his wife on the said motorbike and at the same time, unknown motorcycle dashed his motorbike, resultantly, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death during course of treatment.

¶17

The claimant / wife of deceased filed claim case under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein she pleaded that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3,300/- and age 60 years. She claimed a sum of Rs.7,71,000/-.

¶18

The owner of the motorbike/respondent No. 1 filed reply and supported the claim petition. The Insurance Company/respondent No.2 denied the contents of claim petition and took a specific plea that the deceased was not a registered owner of the vehicle-motorbike. It is also pleaded by the Insurance Company that on the date of accident, the deceased did not have a valid and effective driving licence. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed.

¶19

Ms. Ankita Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that additional premium of Rs.350/was paid to cover the life of owner-driver to the extent of 15 lacs, and therefore, the claimant was entitled to get compensation. She would submit that on the date of accident, the deceased had valid and effective licence and the Insurance Company failed to prove contrary.

¶20

¶21

She would submit that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal may be set aside.

¶22

Ms. Shrejal Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company would oppose. She would submit that the deceased did not have a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. She would contend that the driving licence issued in favour of the deceased was valid upto 29.06.2013, whereas incident occurred on 07.07.2019. She would further contend that the learned Claims Tribunal has recorded specific finding in this regard. It is also contended by Ms. Gupta that the deceased was not registered owner of the motorbike and he stepped into the shoes of owner of the vehicle, therefore, the claim application filed under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable and the learned Claims Tribunal rightly dismissed the same.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection.

¶24

The Insurance Policy would show that a premium of Rs.350/- was paid for personal accident of owner-driver to cover risk upto Rs.15 lacs. In the policy, it is specifically mentioned with regard to Driver-Clause that “ any person including insured; provided that the person driving holds and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective learner’s licence may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 .”

¶25

It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 was registered owner of the vehicle-motorbike. The driving licence issued in favour of the deceased

¶26

¶27

was effective till 29.06.2013. On the date of accident i.e. 07.07.2019, the deceased did not have any valid and effective driving licence and thus, according to driver-clause mentioned in the Insurance Policy, the claimant was not entitled to receive compensation. In my considered opinion, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant.

¶28

Consequently, the appeal preferred by the claimant fails and is hereby

¶29

dismissed .

¶30

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶31

vatti

Jhulbai v. Janakram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhulbai v. Janakram

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

Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth Vs Rajendra Kumar Sinha

Badrika Vs Pramod Kumar

Ganesh Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Bhoi Vs Hiralal Chauhan

Beedi Kamgar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ashwani Kumar Vs Yudhishathir