Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 13374
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2006 of 2019
1. Smt. Laxmi Thakur W/o Late Jai Singh Thakur Aged About 46 Years By Caste - Kshatriya, R/o Rajapara Kanker, Police Station And Tahsil Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
2. Omprakash Thakur S/o Late Jai Singh Thakur Aged About 26 Years By Caste - Kshatriya, R/o Rajapara Kanker, Police Station And Tahsil Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
3. Lokeshwar Singh Thakur S/o Late Jai Singh Thakur Aged About 18 Years By Caste - Kshatriya, R/o Rajapara Kanker, Police Station And Tahsil Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District :Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s)
versus
1. Manish Singh S/o Brij Kishore Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o 02/398, Sarvoday Nagar Rajdhani Road, Shuklaganj Unnav, Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnav Uttar Pradesh. (Driver), District : Unnao, Uttar Pradesh
2. Rahul Tarak S/o O.P. Tarak, R/o L.I.C. Colony, Mova Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office M.B. Trade Centre, Second Floor, Near Gandhi Chowk, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s)
MAC No. 2074 of 2019
Rahul Tarak S/o O.P. Tarak Aged About 47 Years R/o L.I.C. Colony, Mowa, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Caste Brahman, Address Village Kapsi, Police Station And Tahsil Doundilohara , District Balod Chhattisgarh..(Non Aaplicnat No 2) (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No Cg-04-Ct-4652), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smt. Lakshmi Thakur W/o Late Jaisingh Thakur Aged About 46 Years Caste Kshatri , R/o Rajapara, Kanker, Police Station And Tahsil - Kanker , District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
2. Omprakash Thakur S/o Late Jaisingh Thakur Aged About 26 Years Caste Kshatri , R/o Rajapara, Kanker, Police Station And Tahsil - Kanker , District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
3. Lokeshwar Singh Thakur S/o Late Jaisingh Thakur Aged About 18 Years Caste Kshatri , R/o Rajapara, Kanker, Police Station And Tahsil - Kanker , District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
4. Manish Singh S/o Brijkishor Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o - 02/398, Sarvoday Nagar , Rajdhani Marg, Shuklaganj, Unnav, Police Station Gangaghat , District Unnav Uttarpradesh....(Non Applicant No. 01) (Driver Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No Cg-04-Ct-4652), District :Unnao, Uttar Pradesh
5. The Orinental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager , Branch Office - M.B. Trade Centre , Second Floor , Near Gandhi Chowk , Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh...(Non Applicant No 03) ( Insurer Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. Cg-04-Ct-4652), District :Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s)
MAC No. 2006 of 2019
For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Respective Respondents : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate along with Ms.Prerna Agrawal, Advocate
MAC No. 2074 of 2019
For Appellant/Owner : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate
For Respective Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate along with Ms.Prerna Agrawal, Advocate : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
11.03.2026
Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Order on Board
1. In these two appeals, the judgment and award passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker District North Bastar Knaker passed in Claim Case No. 59/2016 dated 20.08.2019 has been challenged.
2. MAC No. 2006 of 2019 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, whereas, MAC No. 2074 of 2019 has been filed by the owner of the vehicle challenging liability part.
3. The facts in brief are that on 17.05.2016 while deceased Ku. Pooja Thakur was going towards Govindpur on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 04 CT 4652 as a pillion rider, said bike dashed with the State Bank signboard. In said accident, Ku. Pooja Thakur sustained injuries and during course of treatment succumbed to death. Mother and two siblings of deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, wherein they pleaded that age of the deceased at the time of accident was 23 years; she was bachelor and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month as she was working as guest lecturer in Government Bhanupratap Deo College, Kanker. The driver of the vehicle filed reply to the claim petition and pleaded that he had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. The owner of the vehicle filed separate reply and specifically pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company.
4. The Insurance Company took a plea that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of conditions of Insurance policy. The learned Tribunal framed issued, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. The learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,94,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum and fastened liability with the owner of the offending bike.
5. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate would submit that the learned Tribunal failed to grant compensation for future prospects and also failed to grant compensation for loss of consortium to the claimant No. 1 i.e. mother of the deceased. He would pray for enhancement of compensation accordingly. Mr. Dhurandhar would submit that the learned Tribunal should have directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and recover it from owner of the vehicle as the driving licence of driver of the offending vehicle was not found valid. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rama Bai vs. Amit Minerals and Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2067 and New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs. Kamla and Ors. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 342.
6. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate appearing for owner of the offending vehicle would submit that Manish Singh was a driver, who was engaged by the owner of the motorbike after due verification of his driving licence. He would submit that the driving licence of Manish Singh was examined by the appellant/owner and it was found valid and effective, and therefore, he was employed. It is argued by Mr. Pandya that the Insurance Company failed to establish the fact that on the date of accident, the driver Manish Singh did not have valid and effective driving licence. He would submit that burden was on the Insurance Company to establish this fact, and thus, the learned Tribunal committed error of law while fastening liability with the owner of the vehicle. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed in MAC No. 1192/2012 in the matter of Mohd. Sajid Meman vs. Smt. Savita Bai and Ors.
Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate would submit that original driving licence of Manish Singh has been placed on record as Ex. D/5 bearing registration No. UP 35/ 2013/ 0090749. He would contend that the Insurance Company failed to prove the fact that the said driving licence was forged one. He would further contend that authenticity of driving licence Ex.D-1C and D-3 were not verified by NAW-3/ Pawan Kumar Tripathi.
7. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate appearing for Insurance Company
