1 2025:CGHC:43039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 847 of 2023 The New India Assurance (Wrongly Mentioned Insurance) Company Limited, M.M. Tower Akashvani Road Jagdalpur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Through Authorized Signatory Manager, T.P. Claim Hub Office, 2nd Floor Rama Trade Center above Axis Bank, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1- Smt. Anupama Masih, W/o. Nikhil Kumar Masih, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Government Forest Colony Market Lane (Bazar Gali) Annapurna Para Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) 2- Nikhil Kumar Masih, S/o. Masih Charan, Aged About 46 Years, R/o. Government Forest Colony Market Lane (Bazar Gali) Annapurna Para Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 3- Ku. Muskan Masih, D/o. Nikhil Kumar Masih, Aged About 22 Years, R/o. Government Forest Colony Market Lane (Bazar Gali) Annapurna Para Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.08.26 17:23:19 +0530 2 4- Ratan Kumar Netam, S/o. Chainsing Netam, Aged About 24 Years, R/o. Manjhipara Lanjoda, P.S. & Tehsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ………...(Driver) 5- Pradeep Mandavi, S/o. Late Sukhcharan Mandavi, Aged About 26 Years, R/o. Manjhipara Lanjoda, P.S. & Tehsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ……….(Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. B.N.Nande, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Devanshi Chakraborty, Advocate on behalf of Mr. H.A.P.S.Bhatia, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 25.08.2025 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Kanker in Claim Case No.35/2022, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and an amount of compensation of Rs.38,33,500/- has been awarded to the claimants along-with interest @ 9% 3 per annum from the date of filing of claim application for the death of Aryan Mashih, son of claimant No.1 & 2 and brother of claimant No.3. 2. Mr. B.N.Nande, learned counsel for appellant/insurance company, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle did have valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and recorded a finding which is perverse to the record. He would further submit that the quantum of compensation is also at higher side, therefore, the insurance company is not responsible to pay compensation and, as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Pappu & Others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Another1 to buttress his submission. 3. Mr. A.L.Singroul, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondent No.1 to 3 and Ms. Devanshi Chakraborty, learned counsel for the owner/respondent No.5 would support the impugned award and submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 1 (2018) 3 SCC 208 4 5. The learned Claims Tribunal, by the impugned award, while dealing with the plea of insurance company, that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence, has clearly recorded a finding that the insurance company has not obtained the document from the concerned R.T.O. and did not serve any notice to the owner & driver to produce the driving licence under Order 12 Rule 8 of C.P.C. and has also not filed any investigation report. Mr. Shahbaj Siddiqui has been examined on behalf of the insurance company, who has clearly stated that the driver of the offending vehicle Ratan Kumar Netam did not have valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the driver was prosecuted for the offence under Section 3/181 and the owner was prosecuted for the offence under Section 5/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving the vehicle in contravention of Section 3 & 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the insurance company has neither pleaded nor proved the result of the prosecution against the owner & driver for offence under Section 3/181 & 5/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and mainly because the accused owner & driver were charged under Section 3/181 & 5/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be held that owner & driver were convicted for the offence under Section 3/181 & 5/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for not holding 5 driving licence. More particularly the insurance company has failed to prove its pleading that the driver did not have valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. However, the reliance placed by the insurance company in the matter of Pappu (supra) is clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case, as the insurance company has failed to prove the fact that the driver did not have valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the claimants and going through the pleadings and the documents on record, I do not find any merit in the cross objection filed by the claimants, therefore, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 7. The parties shall bear their own cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok