1 2025:CGHC:32739 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 696 of 2017 1 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office 621500 Plat No. 102 And 103 Shri Leelajagnnath Tower Opside State Bank Of India Mararipellam Wudalayout Vishakhapatnam Andhrapradesh 530018 Through Reginal Office Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Akashwani Road, Near To Gandhi Nagar Tower First Manzil Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh 494001 ..............Insurance Company, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Devki Pidda W/o Late Pusu Ram Pidda, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bahigaon, Tah. Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 2 - Ku. Radhika D/o Late Pusu Ram, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bahigaon, Tah. Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Ranjita Pidda D/o Late Pusu Ram, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bahigaon, Tah. Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Salendr Pidda S/o Late Pusu Ram, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Bahigaon, Tah. Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimants, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Dandu Venkata Suryaprasad S/o Dandu Manohar Raju, D.No. 8-41 Kondaywalasa, R.H.Colony Aganampudi, Pedamadaka Vishakhapatnam Andhrapradesh ...............Vehicle Driver, District : Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 6 - Posina Ramchardra Rao S/o Venkanna, C/o Chinrjivi D.No.25-136 Weddi Vidhi Salur, Vishakhapatnam Andhrapradesh ...............Vehicle Owner, District : Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Praveen Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 & 6 : None. 3 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/07/2025 1. The present appeal is directed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 by the insurance company against the award dated 03.02.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 71/2015, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,44,500/- in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4 herein. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 09.10.2015 at around 5:00 PM, the deceased Pusuram was going by bicycle when he was hit by a tanker bearing registration number A.P. 35 W/0729, which was being driven by respondent No. 5, namely, Dandu Veketa, who was a cleaner by profession. During treatment, pusuram has died. It is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was being driven by an unauthorized person, as respondent No. 5, being a cleaner, was not entitled to drive the vehicle and did not possess a valid driving licence. Both respondent No. 5 (driver) and respondent No. 6 (owner) admitted in their pleadings that respondent No. 5 had no driving licence and was working as a cleaner. Although they tried to introduce a new version of the 4 facts, the tribunal did not accept the same. The FIR has lodged against respondent No. 5 who is the driver, and a criminal case bearing No. 145/2015 was registered against him before the JMFC, Keshkal (C.G.) after the accident. Additionally, no driving licence of respondent No. 5 was found or seized during investigation, as reflected in the seizure memo. Therefore, since the vehicle was being driven by an unauthorized and unlicensed person, the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that though the liability was fastened upon the owner, however, pay and recover order has been passed on the ground that the owner is not in a position to satisfy the awarded amount. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 opposes the same. 5. None for respondents No. 5 & 6 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that this Court finds no merit in the appeal. It is evident that although the liability was rightly fastened upon the owner of the offending vehicle, a "pay and recover" order has 5 been passed considering the owner's inability to satisfy the awarded compensation. Such direction is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 8. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed, and no interference is called for. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat