1 2025:CGHC:41121 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1063 of 2019 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Hotel Novelty Powerganj Chowk Lohardaga, Jharkhand, District- Lohardaga, Jharkhand...............(Insurer), --- Appellants versus 1 - Chamraram S/o Late Mansharam Sahu Aged About 58 Years 2 - Smt. Sunita Sahu Wd/o Late Chhabi @ Chhameshwar Sahu Aged About 25 Years 3 - Minor Dhiraj S/o Chhabi @ Chhameshwar Sahu Aged About 7 Years 4 - Minor Anish S/o Chhabi @ Chhameshwar Sahu Aged About 4 Years No.3 and 4 are Minors, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Sahu Wd/o Late Chhabi @ Chhameshwar Sahu, All are R/o Village Charkhapara, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - James Ekka S/o Piyush Ekka Aged About 23 Years Driver, R/o Village Utrathi, Kowewa Tarai, Police Station Tandwa, District- Jatra, Jharkhand., District : Jamtara, Jharkhand 6 - Ranchi Pallotitin Society Through 1/c Father John Sundu (Owner Of Vehicle) Pallottin Nagar Kurru Lohardaga, Jharkhand. --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Respondents No. 5 : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For Respondents No. 6 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 14/08/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.16 10:45:14 +0530 2 the impugned award dated 19.02.2019, passed in Claim Case No. 64 of 2018, whereby the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gharghoda, District – Raipur (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 by claimants/respondent No.1 to 4 in part, awarding total compensation of Rs.6,25,300/-, fastening liability to satisfy the amount of compensation on non-applicants jointly and severally. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 filed an application seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 mentioning that Chhameshwar Sahu while traveling on motor cycle was dashed by one Marshal Jeep bearing No. B.R.-14P- 2848, suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to motor accidental injuries, claimed total sum of Rs.76,10,000/- as compensation. 3. Non-applicant No.1 submitted reply to claim application and denied the pleadings made therein. Non-applicant No.2, owner of offending vehicle did not submit his reply and he was proceeded ex-parte. Non- applicant No.3 submitted reply denying the pleadings made in application and further taken a plea amongst others that offending vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions as driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal while considering the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties arrived at a conclusion that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving license, allowed the claim 3 application in part and awarded Rs.6,25,300/- as total compensation to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3. 5. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company would submit that learned Claims Tribunal even after deciding the Issue No.4 in affirmative that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving license, erred in not exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to satisfy the compensation recording a finding that there was breach of policy conditions. He also contended that in para-16 of impugned award, though the learned Claims tribunal has opined that non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company can recover the amount so paid by it from non-applicant No.1, and 2 i.e. driver and owner of offending vehicle, however in relief clause, no such relief has been granted in favour of Insurance Company. He contended that in the facts of the case, where the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal on Issue No.4 that non-applicant No.1, driver was not possessing valid and effective driving license, which is not challenged by driver or owner of offending vehicle, it attained finality and therefore, Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No.6/owner of offending vehicle would submit that in para-16 of the impugned award there is specific observation of Claims Tribunal that appellant/Insurance Company can recover the amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 supports the impugned award. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused record of claim case. 9. Counsel for respondent No.5 & 6 have not disputed the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal on Issue No.4 that on the date of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving license as also the observation by learned Claims Tribunal that appellant/Insurance Company can initiate proceeding to recover the compensation so paid from non-applicant No.1 and 2. In the aforementioned facts of the case, said finding of Claims Tribunal on the Issue No.4 and observation made, has attained finality. 10. Perused the contents of impugned award, wherein learned Claims Tribunal had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S. S. Iyyapan Vs. United India Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 62 and had observed that the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability on the ground of breach of policy conditions and will be entitled for recovery of amount of compensation so paid from insured. The decision which was relied upon by learned Claims Tribunal in case of S. Iyyapan (supra) is on different facts. In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court considered that the driver of vehicle was holding license to drive light motor vehicle, however, there is no endorsement authorizing to dive commercial vehicle also, accordingly it is held that Mahindra Maxi Cab, passenger vehicle to be light motor vehicle and accordingly set- aside the judgment of High Court and held the insurer liable to pay the amount of compensation. 5 11. In case at hand, driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving license and it was found proved that license produced was fake license. Copy of insurance policy is available on record. The insurance of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Owner and driver of offending vehicle has not filed any appeal or raised grounds that not having valid driving license will not attract breach of conditions of insurance policy. Photocopy of the insurance policy available on record would show that it also bears the driver clause which mentions that “any person including the insured, Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license”. 12. According to evidence of Administrative Officer based on document Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4, that license stated to be issued in the name of non- applicant No.1 was not issued from District Transport Office, Hazaribag Jharkhand. The evidence of Insurance Company on the license of the non-applicant No.1 has not been discarded by learned Claims Tribunal in specific terms, however, it only observed that non- applicant No.3 being Insurance Company is having liability to satisfy the award and further observed for recovery of the amount of compensation so paid by that Insurance Company can recover the same from non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle. 13. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in not framing issue whether the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions on the date of accident and have not specifically hold that vehicle was 6 being driven in breach of policy conditions in absence of valid and effective license. 14. In light of the facts of the case and considering Issue No. 4, it appears that both parties were aware of the need to prove before the Claims Tribunal the validity and effectiveness of the driving license held by Non-Applicant No. 1, therefore, I find it appropriate to accept the plea of learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not recording specific finding that offending vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions and to exonerate the insurance company from its liability. 15. In view of the specific finding of learned Claims Tribunal on Issue No.4 not challenged by driver and owner of offending vehicle it is held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions (driver clause), therefore, Insurance Company cannot be held liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. Accordingly, appellant/Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability. 16. As this Court has exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to satisfy the amount of compensation only on the ground that driver was not having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident, therefore, considering the facts of the case and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shamanna and another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2018 (9) SCC 650 and National Insurance Company vs. Swarn Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, I find it appropriate to direct the insurance company to first pay entire amount of compensation as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal and thereafter to recover the 7 same from owner and driver of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. For recovery of amount of compensation so deposited by the Insurance Company, it will not be required to file separate proceeding but can recover in the same execution proceeding as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Nanjappan reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram