THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE (CORRECT NAME IS ASSURANCE ) COMPANY LIMITED vs SHARDA DANSENA

1


CGHC010203812023 2026:CGHC:46505

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1126 of 2023
1 - The New India Insurance (Correct name is Assurance)
Company Limited, Branch Office Kewdabadi, Near Bus Stand,
Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Sharda Dansena W/o Sarju Dansena, Aged About 45 Years,
Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Rajpur, Belpali, Police Station
Bhupdevpur, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.)
2 - Amika Dansena D/o Late Sarju Dansena, Aged About 23 Years
R/o Village Rajpur, Belpali, Police Station Bhupdevpur, Tahsil
Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.)
3 - Disha Dansena W/o Sarju Dansena Aged About 45 Years
Occupation Student. R/o Village Rajpur, Belpali, Police Station
Bhupdevpur, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.)
4 - Neha Jaiswal D/o Late Sarju Dansena Aged About 25 Years
Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Judga, Tahsil And Police
Station Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)…... (Claimants)

2
5 - Ramkumar Sahu S/o Pancharam Sahu Aged About 38 Years
R/o Village Bhathapara, Nawagarh, Ward No. 11, Tahsil
Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ( Driver Of Vehicle)
6 - Indarmani Mineral India Private Limited G.E. Road,
Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : None
For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, counsel.
For Respondent No.6 : None.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
Order on Board
(03 /11/2026 )
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance
Company assailing the award dated 28.01.2023 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District
Raigarh (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.33/2022,
whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.22,22,260/-
as compensation to the claimants for the death of Late
Sarju Dansena in a motor accident that occurred on
20.12.2021.
2. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has
fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the

3
Insurance Company. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal
has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has
primarily contended that the offending vehicle was being
plied without a valid permit and, therefore, there was a
breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It
is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in
not accepting the said contention. Therefore, the impugned
award may be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5 has
opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company and supported the impugned
award.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company and respondent No.5,
considered their rival submissions and perused the record
of the Tribunal with due circumspection.
6. The sole contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is
that the permit of the offending vehicle had not been duly
authorized and, therefore, the vehicle was being plied in
contravention of the provisions of law as well as the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy.

4
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Binod
Kumar Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. , SLP
(Civil) No.13060 of 2020 . has observed in para 8 as under:
“8. This Court has carefully gone through the
permit which is on record and the National
Permit is certainly valid up to 13.10.2017. The
authorization fee was required to be paid only
when the truck was moving out of State of
Bihar as it was registered in the State of Bihar
and the truck caught fire on account of short-
circuit on 08.06.2014 in the State of Bihar
itself and, therefore, the respondent company
could not have repudiated the claim on such
a frivolous ground. The permit in question
was issued by the competent authority in
Bihar and, therefore, there was no
requirement of paying authorization fee when
the truck was being used in the State of Bihar
and as per the terms and conditions of the
National Permit, authorization fee was
required to be paid only when the truck was
moving out of State of Bihar. Thus, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the
appellant was certainly entitled for the
insurance claim as held by the State
Commission and, therefore, the order passed
by the National Commission, dated
19.08.2020, deserves to be set aside and is

5
accordingly set aside. The respondent
National Insurance Company is directed to
process the claim of the appellant and to pay
the amount to the appellant within a period of
60 days from today. It is needless to mention
that the claim became due in the year 2014
and it was repudiated by the respondent
National Insurance Company in the year
2014 itself. The order of the State
Commission allowing the claim was passed in
the year 2017 which was reversed by the
National Commission in the year 2020.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the appellant was not only entitled for
the entire claim amount right from the date it
became due but he is also entitled for interest
from the date of the complaint made before
State Commission till the date, the amount is
actually paid to him. The appellant shall be
entitled to interest @ 9% per annum and the
same with the proposed amount be paid
positively within 60 days from today.”
8. In the instant case, upon perusal of the permit (Ex. D-5), it is
evident that the same was valid for the period from
25.12.2018 to 24.12.2023 and, therefore, was valid on the
date of the accident, i.e., 20.12.2021. Further, the accident
occurred within the State of Chhattisgarh and the permit

6
was also issued by the competent authority of the State of
Chhattisgarh. Thus, in view of aforesaid factual
backgrounds of the case, this Court finds no merit in the
contention advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company regarding breach of the
permit condition. Accordingly, the said contention is
rejected.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion and in view of the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Binod ( supra ), this
Court finds no infirmity in the finding recorded by the
Tribunal fastening liability upon the appellant-Insurance
Company. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly
dismissed . S
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
pekde
BHARATRAO
PEKDE
Date: 2026.11.04
10:57:09 +0530