1 2025:CGHC:47838 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 940 of 2023 United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager, (Divisional Office No. 2) Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.2) ... Appellant versus 1 - Atul Philip, S/o. Shri Ranjit Philip, Aged About 55 Years, R/o. Vill- Dhekuna, P.O.- Vishrampur, P.S. Simga, Distt.- Balauda Bazar Chhattisgarh (Applicant No. 1) 2 - Chandraprabha Philip, W/o. Shri Atul Philip, Aged About 26 Years, R/o. Vill- Dhekuna, P.O.- Vishrampur, P.S. Simga, Distt.- Balauda Bazar Chhattisgarh (Applicant No. 2) 3 - Asma Philip, D/o. Atul Philip, Aged About 26 Years, R/o. Vill- Dhekuna, P.O.- Vishrampur, P.S. Simga, Distt.- Balauda Bazar Chhattisgarh (Applicant No. 3) 4 - Tannu Ram Sahu, S/o. Shri Alkhu Ram Sahu, R/o. V.I.P. Road Fundhar Devpuri, P.S. Telibandha, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner) (Non-Applicant No. 1) ... Respondents ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.09.18 17:03:22 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 17.09.2025 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 23.02.2023 passed by the learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 544/2021, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and liability has been fastened upon the insurance company to pay the compensation of Rs.12,12,400/- along-with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for appellant/ insurance company, would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set 3 aside and the insurance company be exonerated from its liability. 3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent No.1 & 2 would support the impugned judgment and submit that the liability has rightly been fastened upon the insurance company and, as such, the appeal of the insurance company 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. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the driver of the vehicle did have licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle and the unladen weight of the vehicle was 5540 Kg, which was less than 7500 Kg, as defined under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As such, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is a correct finding and even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Swaran Singh & Ors1 held in para 89 as under :- “89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 4 Act enables Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) Motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub- section (2) of Section 10. They are `goods carriage', `heavy-goods vehicle', `heavy passenger motor- vehicle', `invalid carriage', `light motor-vehicle', `maxi-cab',`medium goods vehicle', `medium passenger motor-vehicle', `motor-cab', `motorcycle', `omnibus', `private service vehicle', `semi-trailer', `tourist vehicle', `tractor', `trailer', and `transport vehicle'. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for `motorcycle without gear', for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for `light motor vehicle' is found to be driving a `maxi-cab', `motor-cab' or `omnibus' for which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was 5 caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.” 6. Revering to the facts of the case in light of the principles of law laid down in Swaran Singh (supra), the insurance company was required to lead evidence that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding the licence of Light Motor Vehicle but plying the heavy goods vehicle and that is the main cause of accident. However, in this case, the learned Claims Tribunal in para 15 & 16 has clearly recorded a finding that the accident occurred on account mechanical failure and, as such, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra) and even otherwise, the insurance company has failed to lead evidence to demonstrate that not holding of requisite driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle was the main reason for accident. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal, the same deserves to be and accordingly is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge