The Chhattisgarh High Court clarified that to challenge a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s findings—particularly on the driver’s alleged lack of a valid licence and the assessment of disability—an insurer must furnish concrete evidence. This judgment upholds settled law, reinforcing established principles regarding the burden of proof under motor vehicle insurance claims, and will serve as binding authority for subordinate courts dealing with similar issues.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/960/2018 of THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs ITWARI |
| CNR | CGHC010168352018 |
| Date of Registration | 22-06-2018 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the Tribunal’s award and assessment |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident/Insurance Claims |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that the insurance company bears the onus to prove the driver did not hold a valid licence. Merely producing a surveyor’s report and pointing to a police challan, without substantive, cogent evidence, is insufficient. The findings of rash and negligent driving, and the resultant disability and compensation calculations by the Tribunal, were found to be based on proper appreciation of evidence and law. Absence of credible contradictory material from the insurer means the Tribunal’s award stands affirmed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | None specified in the judgment |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence; requirement for insurer to provide proof beyond mere allegation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The claimant, a 45-year-old cloth trader, suffered serious injuries resulting in amputation after being hit by a truck. The insurance company appealed on grounds including lack of valid driver’s licence and excessive compensation. The Tribunal had found in favour of the claimant, awarding ₹2,52,846/–. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal’s findings or award. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar questions of insurance liability in Motor Accident Claims |
| Follows | Settled law on insurer’s burden to prove absence of valid licence |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Restates that insurers cannot avoid liability by simple assertion; they must produce convincing, substantive evidence if alleging that a driver lacked a valid licence.
- Reinforces that compensation and disability assessments made by Claims Tribunals will not be disturbed on appeal absent credible contrary material.
- Highlights the necessity for insurance companies to go beyond surveyor reports and police challans when challenging awards.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the Tribunal’s findings and the evidence on record, including the insurer’s assertions regarding the driving licence and disability assessment.
- It noted that the insurer failed to bring on record any substantial, cogent evidence demonstrating the lack of a valid and effective driving licence; mere reliance on a surveyor’s report and police challan was deemed insufficient.
- The Claims Tribunal’s findings on rash and negligent driving were based on oral and documentary evidence, with no contrary material produced in appeal to dislodge these findings.
- The assessment of 70% permanent disability and quantification of compensation was found to be based on settled legal principles.
- Concluded there was no perversity, illegality, or error warranting interference in the appellate jurisdiction, affirming the Tribunal’s award.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Insurance Company):
- Contended that the award was perverse and excessive.
- Asserted that the driver of the offending truck did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.
- Relied on the surveyor’s report and police challan indicating charges under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act as evidence of absence of licence.
- Argued that the Tribunal erred in accepting disability levels without cogent, reliable medical evidence.
Respondent (Claimant, Driver, Owner):
- No representation or argument made before the High Court.
Factual Background
The accident occurred on 29.03.2010, when a claimant, a cloth trader, was hit by a truck while riding a bicycle, resulting in serious injuries including the eventual amputation of his leg and permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded compensation after finding negligent driving by the truck driver and confirming the extent of injuries and disability. The insurance company challenged the award on grounds including the validity of the driver’s licence and the level of compensation.
Statutory Analysis
- Reference was made to Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the offence of driving without a licence.
- The judgment assessed whether the evidence produced (surveyor’s report, police challan) was adequate to establish a statutory defence for the insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act to escape liability.
- No expansive or restrictive interpretation or constitutional issues were discussed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court reaffirmed established legal principles, adhering to existing precedents and settled law regarding the burden of proof on insurers in motor accident claims.