1 2025:CGHC:35532 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1451 of 2024 1 - Sanat Kumar Nishad S/o Jhumuk Ram Nishad Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Pidhi, Post Lahangar, Thana Tumgaon, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Appellant versus 1 - Uttra Kumar Nishad S/o Makhanlal Nishad Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Pidhi, Post Lahangar, Thana Tumgaon, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Sheelabai Nishad W/o Uttra Kumar Nishad Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Pidhi, Post Lahangar, Thana Tumgaon, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Deshbandhu Complex, Rajbandha Maidan Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ….Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Premshankar Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 23/07/2025 1. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 17.04.2023, passed in Claim Case No. H-97 of 2022, whereby BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.07 15:58:56 +0530 2 the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) has awarded compensation of Rs.19,24,400/- to the claimants in death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.48,80,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Mithlesh Nishad, who died in the road accident, pleading therein that on 16.04.2022, Mithlesh was travelling in Pick-up vehicle bearing No.C.G. 04 LX 9331 and was going to his home village Pidhi, at that time non-applicant No.1 while driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner caused accident, due to which he suffered injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was 20 years able bodied persons who was working as cleaner and was earning Rs.400/- per day. Claimants were dependent upon him and due to untimely death of their sold bread earner, they are facing great financial difficulty. 3. Non-applicant No.1 filed his reply to the claim application denying the averments made therein. The happening of accident from the offending vehicle was denied. It was pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license and offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.2. Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply to the application resisting the claim. It was pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving license, and the 3 offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy without any fitness and permit. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by the respective parties, partly allowed the claim application and awarded a total compensation of ₹19,24,400/-. The Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability on the ground that, on the date of accident, offending vehicle did not have a valid permit, and accordingly fastened liability upon Non-Applicant No.1, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant is owner of the offending vehicle Pick-up bearing registration No.C.G.- 04- LX-9331 and have also purchased the insurance policy which was effective from 22.01.2022 to 21.01.2023. The accident was during the currency of the insurance policy, however, the learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the Insurance Company from indemnifying the insured, however issued direction to the Insurance Company to first deposit the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from owner of the offending vehicle. Appellant is owner of offending vehicle. 6. Copy of insurance policy is filed as Ex.-D-4. Perusal of it would show that gross vehicle weight of pick-up vehicle is mentioned as 3250 Kg i.e. more than 3000 Kg. Counsel for appellant in the appeal has taken a ground that there was valid fitness certificate and permit, however, failed to produce either before the Tribunal or before this Court. In the above facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal 4 justified in recording a finding of breach of policy condition on the ground of no permit, which cannot be said to be erroneous. 7. In para 30 of the impugned award, the learned Claims Tribunal has recorded that non-applicant No.1, owner and driver of the offending vehicle admitted that he was not having permit of the offending vehicle. The requirement of permit under Section 66 of the Act, 1988 is mandatory. Plying vehicle on public road/place without permit will be fundamental breach of policy condition. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 has considered the issuance of a direction to Insurance Company to pay and recover in case of breach of conditions of the insurance policy for want of valid permit and held thus :- “24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. 5 Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Lakhmi Chand [Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 45] in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the “Tripitaka”, that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had directed that the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 9. In view of above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company by recording a finding that there was a breach of policy conditions, exonerating Insurance Company from its liability and issuing direction of pay and recover. 10. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the claims Tribunal. The appeal being sans merit which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram