Chhattisgarh High CourtInsurance LawTransport, Maritime, and Aviation Law

12-Year-Old’s Death: Chhattisgarh HC Upholds ₹5.7 Lakh Award, Rejects Permit Objection Over State-Registered Truck’s In-State Accident

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,v.SMT. MALTI SONKAR

12-Year-Old’s Death: Chhattisgarh HC Upholds ₹5.7 Lakh Award, Rejects Permit Objection Over State-Registered Truck’s In-State Accident. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, vs SMT. MALTI SONKAR. Chhattisgarh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether separate authorization was required to operate the offending vehicle within Chhattisgarh, where it was registered and the accident occurred.

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the insurer, holding that the alleged absence of separate authorization did not absolve it of liability to indemnify the insured.

It also directed

The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Tribunal’s award undisturbed.

01Facts

On 11 December 2021, 12-year-old Onisha Sonkar died in a motor accident.

¶ 7

The Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, awarded the claimants ₹5,70,000 and fastened liability on the insurer by award dated 29 January 2024.

¶ 7

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the offending vehicle’s permit lacked the required authorization and that the insurer should therefore be exonerated.

¶ 8–9, 12

The High Court condoned the 24-day delay, admitted the appeal, and heard it finally with the parties’ consent.

¶ 2–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether separate authorization was required to operate the offending vehicle within Chhattisgarh, where it was registered and the accident occurred.

¶ 10, 12–13

ii.2. Whether the alleged absence of that authorization constituted a breach of the insurance policy sufficient to relieve the insurer of liability.

¶ 12–14

03Law Applied

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

¶ 7

Relying on Shri Binod Kumar Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd., SLP (Civil) No. 13060 of 2020, the Court applied the principle that authorization fees under a National Permit are required when a vehicle travels outside the State in which the permit was issued; separate authorization is not required for use within that State.

¶ 12

The Court treated the absence of such authorization as insufficient, in these circumstances, to establish a breach absolving the insurer of liability.

¶ 13

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The vehicle was registered with the Transport Authority at Jashpur, and both its operation and the accident occurred within Chhattisgarh.

¶ 13

Applying Binod Kumar Singh, the Court held that separate authorization was not required for the vehicle’s operation within the State.

¶ 13

Accordingly, the alleged absence of authorization did not establish a policy breach that would exonerate the insurer, and the Tribunal’s finding fastening liability on the insurer disclosed no infirmity.

¶ 12–14

05Holding

The Court answered the issues against the insurer, holding that the alleged absence of separate authorization did not absolve it of liability to indemnify the insured.

¶ 13–14

The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Tribunal’s award undisturbed.

¶ 14
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,vsSMT. MALTI SONKAR

Chhattisgarh High Court · November 02, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment