1 / 6 2025:CGHC:36993 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1440 of 2019 • The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Manager, 1st Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 3 versus 1. Smt. Santoshi Devi Soni D/o Rameshwar Soni Aged About 27 Years R/o Thakur Dev Nagar, Ward No. 47, Atal Awas, Bahatarai Road, P.S. - Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh…………………..Claimant 2. Paduman Lal Soni S/o Late Shri Dataram Soni Aged About 56 Years R/o Atal Awas, Qr. No. 58, Bahatarai Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh……...non-applicant No. 1 3. Ravi Soni S/o Paduman Lal Soni Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Nag Nagin Pond, Bahatarai Road, Sarkanda Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Address Qr.No. 58, Bahatarai Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ……...non-applicant No. 2 ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Mirza Kesar Baig, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 29/07/2025 1. Appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 15.05.2019 passed by Learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 22/18, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 the application filed by applicants-claimants therein under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 1,21,299/- as compensation, fastened liability to satisfy the award upon appellant-non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance company. 2. Motor accident occurred on 24.08.2017 at about 12:30 pm, when applicant/ Respondent No. 1 was at her home along with her brother, by the vehicle car bearing number CG10-E-0001 (henceforth called as “offending car”) by its driver non-applicant No. 1 while driving it rashly and negligently dashed with the wall of the house, damaged to wall and injuries caused to her in the accident is not in dispute. The insurance company has filed this appeal on the ground of fastening of liability of satisfying the award overlooking that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive offending car. 3. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is not dealing with the facts of accident as pleaded by the parties in their claim application, reply to the claim application and further adverted in the impugned award but only considering the ground raised by the insurance company of erroneously fastening of liability. 4. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company would submit that this appeal is filed solely on the ground that the Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that on the date of accident non-applicant No. 1 was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending car, overlooking the documentary evidence available on record. He contended that from the extract of licence as placed on record by the appellant- Insurance Company, it is appearing that on the date of accident, non- applicant No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving licence. He submits that as per the contents of Ext. D-3, Extract of Driving Licence, it is clearly appearing that initially licence was issued in the name of non-applicant No. 1 3 / 6 on 04.01.2011 and was valid and effective till 02.01.2016 for Non-Transport vehicle. After 02.01.2016, the licence issued in the name of non-applicant No. 1 was not renewed till 28.08.2017. The renewal date as mentioned in Ext. D-3 is 28.08.2017 and was valid up to 27.08.2022. The accident occurred on 24.08.2017. From perusal of extract of licence issued by the Licencing Authority, RTO, Bilaspur, it is apparent that licence issued in the name of non-applicant No. 1 was not live, however, the Claims Tribunal overlooking the date as mentioned in the extract of licence, Ext. D-3, has concluded that it cannot be said that the licence authorising non-applicant No. 1 to drive Light Motor Vehicle was not valid and effective on the date of accident. 5. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 & 3 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal in para-18 & 19 gave categorical finding that according to Ext. D-4, licence was valid from 04.01.2011 till 27.08.2022 and there is no evidence or document to show that at any point out time in between above time, licence issued in favour of non-applicant No. 1 was cancelled or ineffective. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 7. Learned counsel for appellant has raised sole ground in this appeal that on the date of accident, non-applicant No. 1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, upon perusal of record and evidence, oral and documentary, brought on record by the respective parties, it is appearing that non-applicant No. 3-Insurance company has produced copy of insurance policy as Ext. D-1, copy of licence obtained online as Ext. D-2, copy of policy under the head of Liability only Policy as Ext. D-3, extract of licence in the name of Padum Lal Soni as Ext. D-3 and the report prepared by the advocate submitted in the evidence of non-applicant No. 3 as Ext. D-4. The 4 / 6 extract of licence is issued under the signature of Licencing Authority, RTO, Bilaspur. The vehicle class is mentioned as Motor Cycle with Gear and Light Motor Vehicle, date of issue is 04.01.2011. Both the categories are of non- transport vehicle. The validity of non-transport vehicle is mentioned as 28.08.2017 to 27.08.2022. The extract of licence was issued on 03.05.2019. In the said document, it is further mentioned that new driving licence was issued on 04.01.2011 till 02.01.2016. Renewal date is mentioned as 28.08.2017 till 27.08.2022. 8. From perusal of Ext. D-3, it is apparent that after 02.01.2016 the licence was renewed on 28.08.2017 till 27.08.2022. The licence was not effective on the date of accident ie., 24.08.2017 as the earlier validity period was expired on 02.01.2016 and it was renewed only on 28.08.2017. Therefore, from the extract of the licence, it is apparent that the accident happened when non- applicant No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving licence in his name. Claims Tribunal fell into error in overlooking the date as mentioned in the extract of driving licence Ext. D-3 and has erroneously took note of the contents mentioned in Ext. D-4 which is not a document issued by the RTO or DTO under the signature of licencing authority but it is the document prepared by the advocate who may be the investigator of non-applicant No. 3-Insurance company in which date of issuance is mentioned from 04.01.2011 to 27.08.2022. As Ext. D-4 is not issued by any authority of the RTO. The contents of which cannot be taken into consideration when the extract of licence issued from the RTO is available in record, which shows that new licence was issued on 04.01.2011 and its validity period was only till 02.01.2016. As there is no renewal of licence from 02.01.2016 to 28.08.2017 for about 1 ½ years, it is ample clear that on the date of accident ie., 24.08.2017, non-applicant No. 1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence. 5 / 6 9. Insurance policy Ext. D-1 bears driver clause, which mentions a person is authorised to drive the vehicle including the insured, provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of accident and not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. It also provides that a person holding an effective Learner’s licence may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 10. In the case at hand, as per the pleadings made by non-applicant No. 1, he was issued regular licence by the concerned RTO, however, the period for which the licence initially was issued was expired much earlier about 1 ½ years prior to the date of accident and it was renewed after the date of accident and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that on the date of accident non- applicant No. 1 was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending car which is a Light Motor Vehicle. The said finding is perverse to the documentary evidence available on record, therefore, it is not sustainable and accordingly set aside. It is held that on the date of accident, offending car was being driven by the person not holding valid and effective driving licence, which is breach of conditions of insurance policy and therefore, the insurance company is exonerated from its liability to indemnify the insured. It is ordered accordingly. 11. As the appellant-insurance company is exonerated from indemnifying the insured only on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by a person not holding valid and effective driving licence, and considering the the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna and another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2018 (9) SCC 650 and National Insurance Company vs. Swarn Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, the appellant-insurance company is directed to first pay the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal and 6 / 6 thereafter to recover the same from non-applicants No. 1 and 2/ Respondents No. 2 & 3 ie., driver and owner of the offending car. For recovery of amount of compensation, so deposited by the Insurance Company, from the owner and driver of the offending car it will not be required to file separate proceeding but can be recovered in the same proceeding by filing execution proceeding as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Nanjappan reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224. 12. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company is allowed in part. Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn