Page No.1 of 6 IN MAC-875-2022 2025:CGHC:44980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 875 of 2022 [Arising out of award dated 31.06.2022, passed in Claim Case No.10/2020 (Shyam Sai Rajwade and others v. Chamru Ram and another) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarguja (Ambikapur)] Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office - Manendragadh Road, Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District - Sarguja, Chhattisgarh .......(Insurer) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Shyam Sai Rajwade S/o Ramgopal Rajwade Aged About 55 Years R/o Gram Manjira, Post - Kalyanpur, P.S. - Jainagar, Tehsil And District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh .......(Claimant) 2 - Ravishankar Rajwade S/o Shyam Sai Rajwade Aged About 29 Years R/o Gram Manjira, Post - Kalyanpur, P.S. - Jainagar, Tehsil And District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh .......(Claimant) 3 - Rajaram Rajwade S/o Shyam Sai Rajwade Aged About 22 Years R/o Gram Manjira, Post - Kalyanpur, P.S. - Jainagar, Tehsil And District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh .......(Claimant) 4 - Chamru Ram S/o Baran Ram Aged About 60 Years R/o Gram Manjira, Post - Kalyanpur, (Navapara), Post - Kakyanpur, P.S. - Jainagar, Tehsil And District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.......(Owner / Driver) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocates For Respondent No.1-3 : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Judgment on Board) SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 6 IN MAC-875-2022 03.09.2025 1. This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 31.06.2022, passed in Claim Case No.10/2020 (Shyam Sai Rajwade and others v. Chamru Ram and another) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarguja (Ambikapur) [for short the “Claims Tribunal”], whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.5,98,200/- as compensation to respondents No.1-3/claimants along with interest @ 7% pm by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company/appellant to pay the said compensation amount to the claimants/respondents No.1-3. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company would submits that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company/appellant herein to pay compensation to the claimants because the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to ply the said vehicle on the date of accident. In the present case, the accident took place on 12.09.2019, whereas, the driving license of the respondent No.04 stood expired on 25.03.2015 and the same was renewed on 18.10.2019 for a period of 05 years i.e. uptill 17.10.2024. Learned counsel further argued that Section 14(2)(b)(ii) of the Act of 1988 (as it stood prior to its Page No.3 of 6 IN MAC-875-2022 amendment w.e.f. 1.09.2019) will be applicable in the present case, as admittedly the deceased was aged about 52 years 08 months on the date of accident, whereas the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly applied Section 14(2)(b)(iii) of the Act of 1988. As such, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and, therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. In alternative, learned counsel also submits that in light of decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh 1 principle of pay and recover would be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, the present appeal be allowed in full or in part. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.01-03/Claimants would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and support the impugned award and also prays for dismissal of the appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, in the present case, the accident took place on 12.09.2019, whereas the driving license (Ex.D/03) of the respondent No.04 stood expired on 25.03.2015, which was issued to him on 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 Page No.4 of 6 IN MAC-875-2022 26.03.2010 and the same was renewed on 18.10.2019 for a period of 05 years i.e. uptill 17.10.2024. However, Section 14(2)(b)(ii) of the Act of 1988 (prior to its amendment w.e.f. 01.09.2019), reads as under: “(ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal.” 6. A careful perusal of the above quoted provision would show that if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of 50 years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal. In the instant case, according to driving license of the respondent No.04 (Ex.D/03) his date of birth is 01.05.1958 and, therefor, on 26.03.2010 (date of issuance of the license) the respondent No.4 was aged about 52 years 10 months. Therefore, by virtue of said provision his said license is deemed to have been issued for period of 5 years and the same was expired on 25.03.2015. However, in the instant case, the accident occurred on 12.09.2019, on which date, the driver (respondent-4) did not have valid and effective driving license to ply the offending vehicle and the same was renewed on 18.10.2019. 7. Even otherwise, if amended Section 14(2)(b)(iii) of the Act of Page No.5 of 6 IN MAC-875-2022 1988 is made applicable in the present case, then also it can safely be concluded that the driver (respondent-4) did not have valid and effective driving license to ply the offending vehicle on the date of accident, as amended Section 14(2)(b)(iii) of the Act of 1988 provides that the person has attained the age of 50 years, but has not attained the age of 55 years on the date of issue or, renewal thereof, be effective until the date on which such person attains the age of 60 years. However, in the present case, the driving license was issued in favour of respondent No.04 on 26.03.2010, on which date he was aged about 52 years 10 months and, as such, the said license was valid till 01.05.2018 when the respondent No.4 attained the age of 60 years and the same was subsequently renewed on 18.10.2019 for a period of 5 years till 17.10.2024, whereas the accidents occurred on 12.09.2019. Therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in applying Section 14(2)(b)(iii) of the Act of 1988 under the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. In that view of the matter, either by applying Section 14(2)(b) (ii) of the Act of 1988 (prior to its amendment w.e.f. 01.09.2019) or by applying Section 14(2)(b)(iii) of the Act of 1988, it cannot be held that the driver (respondent No.04) was having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. Therefore, impugned award holding that the appellant herein is liable to pay the compensation amount to the dependents of the deceased is hereby set aside, however, in Page No.6 of 6 IN MAC-875-2022 light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra), it would be in the fitness of things to apply the principle of pay and recover in the present case in the instant case. Accordingly, it would be expedient to direct the appellant – Insurance Company to firstly pay the entire amount of compensation along with interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the claimants within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, thereafter, recover the same from respondent No.4 herein. It is ordered accordingly. 9. With aforesaid direction and modification with regard to the order of pay and recover, this appeal stands finally disposed of. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if