1 MAC No. 878 of 2023 2025:CGHC:46287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 878 of 2023  Pannalal Sahu Late Motiram Sahu, Aged About 51 Years, Resident of Village Chargaon, Post Pratappur, Thana Dadhi, Tahsil and District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Chakravarti Kathale S/o Ayudhya Kathale, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Navagaon (Katai), Thana & Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Driver & Owner of Ashok Leland No. C.G./04/N.J./3179). 2. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Address- Shop No. 516, 5th floor, National Corporate Park Commercial Complex G.E. Road Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company of Ashok Leland No. C.G./04/N.J./3179). ... Respondents For Appellant :-Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 :-Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 :- Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 10.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.11 17:11:22 +0530 2 MAC No. 878 of 2023 appellant/claimant challenging the impugned award dated 01.04.2023 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 34/2022, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claimant’s application for grant of compensation on the ground that at the time of incident, the claimant did not have the valid and effective driving license to drive the scooty and also three persons were sitting on the scooty at the time of incident and the claimant was negligently driving the scooty, due to which accident was occurred and he suffered the injury. 2. Mr. Rajkumar Pali, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claimant’s application for grant of compensation by relying upon the fact that the injured claimant did not have the valid and effective driving license and at the time of incident three persons were sitting on the vehicle and, therefore, due to his own negligence, the appellant had suffered injuries, however, the fact that applicant had suffered the injuries due to the negligent driving of respondent No.1 has not been considered by the learned Claims Tribunal. 3 MAC No. 878 of 2023 3. Mr. Arvind Prasad and Ms. Harneet Kaur, counsel for the respective respondents, would support the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 5. The Claims Tribunal has rejected the claimant’s application for grant of compensation merely on the ground that the appellant herein was driving the vehicle, on which except the appellant two more persons were also sitting and, therefore, it was the case of negligent driving and also on the ground that the appellant did not have the valid and effective license at the time of incident. However, the Claims Tribunal has to be recorded a clear finding that whether respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle negligently and caused the accident by which claimant suffered grievous injuries, but that has not been considered by the Claims Tribunal and only on the basis that the appellant did not have the valid and effective license at the time of incident and except the appellant two more persons were also sitting on the vehicle, at the time of incident, proceeded to reject the claim application which cannot be sustained and accordingly, the impugned award is set aside 4 MAC No. 878 of 2023 and the matter is remitted to the concerned Claims Tribunal for deciding the claimant’s application afresh within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order without being prejudiced by impugned award dated 01.04.2023 passed in Claims Case No.34/2022 which this Court has already set aside. 6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the appeal stands disposed off. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit