Chhattisgarh High CourtInsurance LawTransport, Maritime, and Aviation Law

Chhattisgarh HC Upholds ₹22.22-Lakh Crash Award For Man’s Family, Rejects Insurer’s Challenge Over Valid Permit

THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE (CORRECT NAME IS ASSURANCE ) COMPANY LIMITEDv.SHARDA DANSENA

Chhattisgarh HC Upholds ₹22.22-Lakh Crash Award For Man’s Family, Rejects Insurer’s Challenge Over Valid Permit. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE  (CORRECT NAME IS ASSURANCE ) COMPANY LIMITED vs SHARDA DANSENA. Chhattisgarh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the offending vehicle was being operated in breach of the permit requirement or insurance-policy conditions on the date of the accident

The court held

The Court held that the Insurance Company had not established a breach of the permit condition and found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s decision to fasten liability on it.

It also directed

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.

01Facts

Sarju Dansena died in a motor accident on 20 December 2021.

¶ 1–3, 6, 8

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, awarded the claimants ₹22,22,260 and fastened liability on the Insurance Company.

¶ 1–3, 6, 8

The Company appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the offending vehicle was being operated without a valid permit.

¶ 1–3, 6, 8

The permit (Ex. D-5) was valid from 25 December 2018 to 24 December 2023.

¶ 1–3, 6, 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the offending vehicle was being operated in breach of the permit requirement or insurance-policy conditions on the date of the accident

¶ 3, 6

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal’s decision to fasten liability on the Insurance Company should be disturbed on that ground

¶ 2, 9

03Law Applied

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

¶ 1

The Court relied on Shri Binod Kumar Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd., SLP (Civil) No. 13060 of 2020, which held, in the circumstances before it, that an insurer could not repudiate a claim for non-payment of an authorization fee where the permit was valid and the vehicle was being used within the state for which the permit had been issued.

¶ 7

The Court also treated the validity and territorial applicability of the permit on the accident date as determinative of the asserted breach.

¶ 8

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The permit was valid on the accident date, 20 December 2021, and had been issued by the competent authority of Chhattisgarh.

¶ 7–9

The accident also occurred within Chhattisgarh.

¶ 7–9

Applying the reasoning in Binod Kumar Singh to those circumstances, the Court rejected the Insurance Company’s contention that the permit condition had been breached.

¶ 7–9

It therefore found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s finding fastening liability on the Company.

¶ 7–9

05Holding

The Court held that the Insurance Company had not established a breach of the permit condition and found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s decision to fasten liability on it.

¶ 9

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶ 9
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE (CORRECT NAME IS ASSURANCE ) COMPANY LIMITEDvsSHARDA DANSENA

Chhattisgarh High Court · November 03, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment