UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SANTOSH KUMAR GAHARE

Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case type: MISC.APPEAL OF COMPENSATION
Decided on: 01-04-2026

<div> 1 2026:CGHC:14924 MAC No. 420 of 2019 2026:CGHC:14924 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 420 of 2019  United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional nd Manager, Divisional Office-II Floor, Gurukripa Towers, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.............(Non-Applicant No.3). --- Applicant versus 1. Santosh Kumar Gahare S/o Pundas Gahare, Aged About 44 Years,............(Applicant No.1); 2. Smt. Maan Bai W/o Santosh Kumar Gahare, Aged About 35 Years,.............(Applicant No.2); 3. Ku. Satyapriya Gahare D/o Santosh Kumar Gahare, Aged About 16 Years,.............(Applicant No.3); 4. Satyadev Gahare S/o Santosh Kumar Gahare, Aged About 12 Years,.............(Applicant No.4); 5. Ku. Manjuli Gahare D/o Santosh Kumar Gahare, Aged About 10 Years,.............(Applicant No.5); Respondents No.3 to 5 are minor through their father Santosh Kumar Gahare (Respondent No.1) Respondents No.1 to 5 all are R/o Lormi Ward no.10, P.S. & Tah. - Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 2026:CGHC:14924 MAC No. 420 of 2019 6. Santosh Kashyap @ Lalu S/o Late Tilak Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Pajaniya, P.S. & Tahsil Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh..................(Driver)............(Non-Applicant No.1). 7. Smt. Nilima Kashyap Wd/o Late Rameshwar Kashyap, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vicharpur, Gotiyapara, P.S. & Tahsil Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh..............(Non-Applicant No.2). --- Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents :- None. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 01.04.2026 1. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award th dated 12.09.2018 passed by the 9 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 310/2017 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) of the claimants and awarded a sum of 8,26,000/- ₹ as compensation along with interest to the claimants by fastening the liability upon the appellant herein. 2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, would submit that the offending vehicle did not have the valid and effective permit and fitness certificate, therefore, the 3 2026:CGHC:14924 MAC No. 420 of 2019 Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount and the Insurance Company might be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation. In support of his submission, he would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and 1 others . 3. None for the respondents/claimants though served. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the records precisely. 5. The insurance company has pleaded that the offending vehicle did not have valid permit and fitness certificate, but in order to prove the said plea Abdul Kaleem, Deputy Manager of the Insurance Company, has been examined in which he has only stated that offending vehicle must have the valid permit and effective fitness certificate as per shown Ex.D/1. He has also stated that the offending vehicle did not have the effective permit and fitness certificate on the ground that it has not been mentioned in final report (Ex.P/1) in which the Owner of the offending vehicle has been charged for offence under Section 56/192 and 66/192 of the Act, 1988 for using vehicle without permit and fitness certificate. 1 (2018) 7 SCC 558 4 2026:CGHC:14924 MAC No. 420 of 2019 6. Merely because, Owner of the vehicle has been added as an accused before the Criminal Court for not having the valid and effective permit and fitness certificate, it cannot be presumed that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have the valid and effective permit and fitness certificate to ply the offending vehicle. To prove that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have the valid and effective permit and fitness certificate, Insurance Company must have brought on record the clinching evidence in this regard and only on the basis of owner of the vehicle added as an accused, the said fact cannot be proved. In that view matter, the Claims Tribunal has rightly fasten the liability upon the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and, as such, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost(s). </div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>Sd/-</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(Sanjay K. Agrawal)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Judge Ankit</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Judge</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ankit</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> </div>