Digitally s igned 2026:CGHC:970 by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.01.09 14:08:07 +0530 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 563 of 2022 * - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 03, R.K. Plaza, Pachpedi Naka, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Represented Through In-Charge, T.P. Hub, T.P. Hub Office, 1st Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Rajiv Plaza, Opposite Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant Versus

1 - Fanesh Pal S/o Shri Durga Prasad Pal, Aged About 31 Years R/o Bhathapara, Belar, Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh……… Claimant

2 - Yuvraj Kuldeep, S/o Shri Krishna Kuldeep, Aged About 31 Years R/o Markatola, Thana Korar, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ..............Driver

3 - Chandraprakash Thakur, S/o Shri Narayan Singh Thakur, At- Rice Millpara, Singarbhatha, Kanker, Chhattisgarh......................Owner ... Respondents For Appellant/ : Mr. R.N. Pusty and Mr. Akash Insurance Company Shrivastava, Advocates For Respondent No. 1/Claimant : Mr. Priya Kaiwart, Advocate holding the brief of the Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/Owner : Mr. A.L. Singroul and Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocates For Respondent No. 2/Driver : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

07/01/2026

1. The appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the liability part of award passed by the learned XII^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 653/2018 dated 11.01.2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,91,512/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Yogita Pal and fastened liability with the Insurance Company.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 30.07.2018 at around 12:45 hours, deceased Yogita Pal was travelling on her motorbike bearing registration No. CG-04 / LP-3243 and she was dashed by a Oil-Tanker bearing registration No. CG-19 / H-0919. Husband of the deceased filed claim case, inter alia on the ground that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 26 years and earning Rs.9,530/- per month.

He claimed a sum of Rs.18 lacs.

3. The Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition and specific plea was taken that the driver of the offending Oil-Tanker, bearing registration No. No. CG-19 / H-0919, did not have valid driving licence to drive a hazardous vehicle. It is also pleaded that there was no endorsement over the driving licence issued in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter award was passed.

5. Mr. R.N. Pusty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would vehemently argue that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence to drive a hazardous vehicle. He would contend that an Oil-Tanker comes within the category of hazardous vehicle. He would contend that according to sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short ‘Rules of 1989), there must be an endorsement in the driving licence of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. He would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal fastened the liability on the Insurance Company on the ground that the endorsement to drive a hazardous vehicle neither increases the efficiency of the driver nor by its absence reduces such efficiency in any manner and for driving such a vehicle, no further expertise or driving skill is required. Mr. R.N. Pusty would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal further recorded a finding that the Oil-Tanker was empty and breach of non-compliance of statutory requirement would not absolve the liability of the Insurance Company. He would submit that the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are erroneous. Mr. R.N. Pusty has placed reliance on the judgmen