1 2025:CGHC:16019 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1155 of 2019 1 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301-302, Corporate House, 169 RNT Marg Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore, Madhya Pradesh....(Insurer of Vehicle No. CG 04 CB 1518). ... Appellant versus 1 - Jhabbulal Sahu S/o Vishrma Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Saliha Bhata, Post Patava, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh........... (Claimant). 2 - Daulatram S/o Toshram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 03, Jhalp, P.S. Patava, Thasil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.......... (Owner Cum-Driver Vehicle No. CG 04 CB 1518). 3 - ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Divendra Nagar Chowk, Sai Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.............(Insurer Vehicle No. CG 06 GE 0664). ... Respondents For the appellant : Mr. Chitram Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/ Claimant : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate For Respondent no.2/ Owner-cum-Driver : Mr. Anirudha Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent no.3 : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) 03/04/2025 01. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 15.03.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (FTC) Mahasamund in Claim Case No.166/2016 whereby the appellant Insurance Company was fastened liability to pay the compensation. 2. The gist of the claim before the Claims Tribunal, in brief, was that on 21.04.2016 respondent no.2 while driving the offending Motor Cycle bearing Regn.No. C.G. 04 CB 1518 dashed the motorcycle bearing Regn.No.C.G.No. 06 GE 00664 of claimant (respondent no.1 herein) as a result of which the claimant suffered fracture in his right leg and other part of the body and under various heads claimant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/-. 3. Respondent no.2 Owner-cum-Driver filed his written statement stating that the accident was caused due to negligence of claimant himself and the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant company and he was having valid driving licence, as such, the appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the claim amount. 4. The appellant Company filed its written statement stating inter-alia that the vehicle was driven in breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy i.e., without valid and effective driving license. 5. The learned claims Tribunal by impugned award dated 15.03.2019 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of 3 Rs.1,60,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual payment and the appellant-Company was directed to pay the same. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company argues that N.A.W.2 Mohar Kumar Kandra, who was a witness called from the District Transport Office, Mahasamund, has categorically stated that the driving license No.C.G.06/0002274/2016 of the driver of the offending vehicle, Daulat Ram, was issued on 02/05/2016, which was a learning license meant for Motorcycle with gear and Light Motor Vehicle and it was valid till 01.11.2016, whereas the accident took place on 21.04.2016 before the issuance of this learning license. However, the Tribunal has erroneously considered the said learning license to be effective on the date of the incident and such finding is not worth sustaining as it is erroneous. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the award passed against appellant-Company be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for claimant/respondent no.1 submits that though the owner-cum-driver was not having a valid driving licence yet at the time of accident, the vehicle was duly insured with appellant Company, therefore, the appellant Insurance Company may be directed to pay first and then recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle. 8. On examination of learning license Ex.D-2 proved by non-applicant witness number-2 Mohar Kumar Kandra which is placed on record, it is found that the said learning license was issued in the name of Daulat Ram on 02/05/2016 whereas the accident took place before the issuance of this learning license on 21/04/2016. Thus, it is clear from evidence that respondent no.2 Daulat Ram did not have effective driving license on the date of the accident on 21/04/2016 and hence driving the vehicle by Daulat Ram in the absence of a valid license was in breach of insurance policy conditions. 4 Therefore, the finding of the trial court that there was no breach of insurance policy conditions is set aside. 9. In the present case, admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-Company and there was breach of Policy conditions. However, considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Amrit Paul Singh Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. & others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 directing the insurance Company to pay first and then recover and also taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly, the fact that at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company, it is directed that the Appellant insurance company shall first pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant and then recover the same from the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent no.2 Daulatram. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. 11. The records of the tribunal along with the copy of this order be sent back forthwith for necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao 5