1 NAF HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 779 of 2015 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Shri Ram General Inssurance Co. Ltd. Plot No. 14th Floor Maruti Heights Near R.K. Mall, Sarsawati Nagar Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Truck CG 04/G/7923)

---- Appellant Versus

1 - Ram Bai Patel, W/o Late Brijlal Patel Aged About 52 Years Resident Gram Navade, Sajapali, Post Soried Thana Chura, District-

Gariaband Chhattisgarh, (Claimant)

2 – Mohd. Ashrar, S/o Moh Altaf Aged About 29 Years Resident Near Masjid Gobra Nayapara Thana Gobra Nayapara District-

Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Driver of Truck CG-04/G/7923)

3 - Moh Sohrab Solanki S/o Moh Hefajuddin Aged About 52 Years Resident Ward No. 13, Ganj Road Gobra Nayapara Thana Gobra, Nayapara, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Owner of Truck CG -04/G/7923)

---- Respondent s For Appellant :Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondent 1 :Shri S.P.Sahu, Advocate For Respondents 2&3 :Shri Rajendra Patel appears on behalf of Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate.

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL Judgment on Board (29.04.2024

1. This is insurer’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'MV Act') aggrieved by award dated 10.03.2015 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short, the learned Tribunal) in Claim Case No.24/2014 whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition awarding total compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation, while fastening liability upon the respondents. It is not disputed that respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle whereas respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

2. As per claim petition, on 17.10.2013, Brijlal Patel met with accident caused by respondent No.1 by driving Truck No. CG/04/G/7923 (offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner. In the said accident, the deceased died on the spot. A claim petition was moved by the appellant seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.18,20,000/- on various heads, pleading, inter alia, that the deceased was aged 60 years and used to earn Rs.500/- per day.

3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on various grounds including Respondent No.3/insurance company filed its written statement and denied the averments of the claim petition and pleaded that there is breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

4. The learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, awarded above stated compensation in favour of the appellant/claimant . 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant-insurance company and the cover note (proposal form) in respect of offending vehicle was found missing by the then sales executive Rakesh Kumar Pandey. He contends that by using fabricated cover note, the offending vehicle was being plied without any authorisation. He further submits that report was lodged in the concerned Police Station by Rakesh Kumar Pandey and published in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper as well with respect to missing of cover note by N.A.W.2 Punit Rathod. It is also submitted by him that no premium has been obtained by the appellant-insurance company, however, the learned Claims Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the appellant/insurance company and fastened the liability on the insurer to indemnify.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, while submitting that the claimant has not filed any separate appeal, contends that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and reasonable.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company and that cover note was also issued by it. It is also submitted by him that during investigation, the cover note bearing