Dismissed¶30

Branch Manager, v. Ganesh Jagat

Chhattisgarh HC19 Feb 2026MAC/507/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MAC 507/2026; High Court of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur; Justice Sachin Singh Rajput; decided 20/02/2026; Section 173 MV Act 1988 appeal by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer, Hyva CG 10 R 4488) against MACT Bilaspur award 14.10.2025 in Claim Case 1250/2023; claimant Ganesh Jagat; injury accident 15.07.2023; award Rs. 6,45,213/- against claim Rs. 10,00,000/-; permit in name of previous owner; violation of insurance policy conditions; Issue No. 4; burden of proof on insurer; clear and cogent evidence; seizure memo Ex. P-6 valid RC, insurance, permit, fitness; no interference; delay condoned IA No. 02; appeal dismissed; advocate Hanuman Prasad Agrawal.

What did the court decide?

For the reasons stated in IA No. 02, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ¶20

Branch Manager, Vs Ganesh Jagat — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned (IA No. 02 – application for condonation of delay). +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

For the reasons stated in IA No. 02, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

To establish a breach of the policy conditions, the insurance company is required to prove such breach by leading clear and cogent evidence.

¶29

Key takeaways

On deciding Issue No. 4, the learned Claims Tribunal found that it was for the appellant (insurance company) to prove the alleged violation, but no evidence was led in that regard.ratio¶29
As per the seizure memo (Ex. P-6), the offending vehicle was found to be having a valid registration certificate, insurance policy, permit, and fitness certificate.ratio¶29
In the present case, the insurance company failed to discharge the burden of proving breach of the policy conditions.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MAC No. 507 of 2026 (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput; Order on Board dated 20/02/2026): Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer of Hyva No. CG 10 R 4488) against the award dated 14.10.2025 of the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No. 1250 of 2023, whereby compensation of Rs. 6,45,213/- (against a claim of Rs. 10,00,000/-) was awarded to claimant Ganesh Jagat for injuries sustained in the accident of 15.07.2023. Delay in filing the appeal was condoned (IA No. 02). The appellant contended that although the vehicle had a permit, it stood in the name of the previous owner, constituting violation of the policy conditions. Perusal of the impugned award showed that on Issue No. 4 the Tribunal had held it was for the insurer to prove the alleged violation and that no evidence was led by it; the seizure memo (Ex. P-6) showed the vehicle carried a valid registration certificate, insurance policy, permit and fitness certificate. Holding that breach of policy conditions must be proved by clear and cogent evidence, that the insurer failed to discharge that burden, and that the Tribunal's findings were not contrary to the record so as to warrant interference, the Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the Tribunal's award intact.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 507 of 2026

¶5

Digitally signed byPAWAN PAWAN KUMAR KUMAR Date:2026.02.23 16:58:51 +0530

¶6

1 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Rama Trade Centre, First Floor, Near Bus Stand Rajiv Plaza Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh New Address 1st Floor, L.I.C. Building, Magar Para Road Bilaspur, Distt. Bialspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Hyva No. C.G. 10 R 4488) (N.A. No. 1)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Ganesh Jagat S/o Jhadiram Jagat Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Ved Parsada, P.S. Masturi Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Claimant)

¶10

2 - Suyash Dubey S/o S.K. Dubey R/o Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Ward, Sarkanda P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (N.A. 2) (Owner Of Vehicle Hyva No. C.G. 10 R 4488)

¶11

3 - Vivekanand Kashyap S/o Jagdish Kashyap Aged About 24 Years R/o Bajrang Para Mulmula P.S. Mulmula Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Hyva No. C.G. 10 R 4488) (N.A. 3)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

20/02/2026

¶17

Heard on IA No. 02 – application for condonation of delay in filing the

¶18

¶19

appeal.

¶20

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶21

Also heard on admission.

¶22

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the MV Act of 1988 ) has been filed assailing the legality, correctness, and judicial propriety of the award dated 14.10.2025 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (for short, the learned Claims Tribunal) , Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No. 1250 of 2023. By the impugned award, against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the learned claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,45,213/- in favour of the respondent No. 1/claimants on account of the injuries sustain by him in an accident had occurred on 15.07.2023 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Hyva bearing registration No. CG 10 R 4488 driven by respondent No. 3 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 / owner and insured with the appellant / insurance company.

¶23

As per pleadings, the respondent No. 1 / claimant met with an accident by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and sustain severe injuries and filed an application under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming the above stated compensation.

¶24

The claim application was resisted by the insurance company on various ground including taking a plea that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

¶25

The learned claims Tribunal framed issues decided the same in favour of the respondent No. 1 / claimant and awarded the above stated compensation by the impugned award.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though there was a permit of the offending vehicle but was in the name of previous owner and there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

¶27

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶29

Perusal of the impugned award indicates that Issue No. 4 was framed with regard to the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. While deciding Issue No. 4, the learned Claims Tribunal found that it was for the appellant to prove the said issue; however, no evidence was led in that regard. The learned claims Tribunal further recorded that, as per the seizure memo (Ex. P-6), the offending vehicle was found to be having a valid registration certificate, insurance policy, permit, and fitness certificate. The law is well settled that in order to establish a breach of the policy conditions, the insurance company is required to prove such breach by leading clear and cogent evidence. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the insurance company has failed to discharge the said burden. Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal does not appear to be contrary to the evidence on record to warranting interference in this appeal.

¶30

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Pawan

Branch Manager, v. Ganesh Jagat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager, v. Ganesh Jagat

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. Saraswati Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anjor Singh Kewat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Samaylal Sahu Vs The Deputy General Manager State Bank Of India

Divisional Manager Vs Maansingh Dhruv

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Jameel Khan

Sr. Divisional Engineer ( General) Vs State of Chhattisgarh