1 2025:CGHC:36259 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1536 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh....(Insurer)....(Non-Applicant No.2), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - Bodhiram Pradhan S/o Late Thanduram Aged About 53 Years Caste- Suryvnshi, R/o Village Jave(Cha) P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh......(Applicant), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manishankar Sahu S/o Ramprasad Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Kulipota P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir- District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh...(Owner)....(Non-Applicant No.1), District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Neelam Khan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (25.07.2025) 1. Heard. 2. This is the insurer’s appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 05.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa, District 2 Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No.56/2017 whereby a compensation of Rs.53,000/- with interest @ 08% per annum has been awarded in favour of the Claimants. 3. Facts of the present case, in brevity, are that the present claim arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.11.2016, resulting in grievous bodily injuries to the Respondent No.1, namely, Bodhiram, who sustained a permanent disability due to the said incident. On the date of the accident, the respondents had gone to the Seed Corporation at Khoksha for the purpose of procuring sacks. After completing the task, at approximately 1:30 PM, the respondent, along with one Chunnulal Sahu, boarded Hero Honda Deluxe motorcycle bearing registration number CG-11-C-2330, owned and driven by Chunnulal Sahu. They exited the premises of the Seed Corporation and proceeded onto the adjoining road. At the same time, Respondent No.2, Manishankar Sahu, driving motorcycle bearing registration number CG-11-BB-8302, came from the opposite direction in a rash, negligent, and reckless manner, without observing traffic discipline, and collided with the motorcycle on which the respondent No.1 was pillion rider. As a result of the said accident, the Respondent No.1 sustained serious injuries, particularly on his right leg, and was immediately taken to the District Hospital, Janjgir, where he remained hospitalized and under continuous treatment from 28.11.2016 to 3 07.12.2016. During the course of treatment, the Respondent No.1 had to undergo surgical intervention, including the insertion of a metal rod in his right leg, due to a compound fracture. Despite medical care, the injuries have resulted in permanent physical disability, severely affecting the Respondent No.1 mobility and capacity to perform daily activities. At the time of the accident, the Respondent No.1 was 53 years old and engaged as an agricultural labourer, earning approximately Rs. 6,000/- per month. The Respondent No.1 was the sole earner of bread and butter of his family and bore the responsibility of maintaining his wife and four dependent children. 4. As a consequence of the accident, the Respondent No.1 has become physically incapacitated, unable to walk without support or engage in gainful employment. The injury has not only deprived him of his livelihood but has also caused immense physical pain, mental trauma, emotional suffering, and led to a significant decline in his quality of life. In addition to permanent disability, the Respondent No.1 has incurred substantial medical expenses, including surgery, hospitalization, medication, follow-up consultations, mobility aids, and attendant care. He has also suffered loss of earnings, both during the period of hospitalization and thereafter due to his physical incapacity. The accident was solely attributable to the negligent and unlawful conduct of Respondent No.2, who drove his vehicle in blatant disregard for traffic norms and safety, thereby endangering the lives of others 4 on the road. The said motorcycle was owned by Respondent No.2 and duly insured by present applicant. Hence the appeal. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the pleadings and evidence set-forth by the parties, held that the injuries sustained due to the alleged accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of 53,000/-, including expenses incurred for medical ₹ treatment, loss of income, for transportation, for attendant, for physical and mental agony, nutritious diet and for future treatment and transportation i.e. 10,000/-, 18,000/-, 1,000/- 9,000/-, ₹ ₹ ₹ ₹ ₹5,000/-, 5,000/- and 5,000/- respectively. Therefore, the total ₹ ₹ compensation was awarded to the tune of 53,000/- by the ₹ Tribunal to the claimant. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that from the perusal of the driving licence (Ex. NA-3) produced by Respondent No.2 before the learned Tribunal, it is evident that the said respondent was authorised only to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (Non-Transport), and there was no endorsement permitting him to drive a Motorcycle with Gear. As such, Respondent No.2 was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence for the category of vehicle involved in the accident. Despite this, the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the respondent was duly licensed and wrongly fastened liability upon the appellant–insurance company. This finding is legally unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 5 7. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha 1 and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in MAC No. 631/2017. It is further submitted that Respondent No.2 was charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reinforces the fact that he was not authorised to drive the motorcycle in question. Additionally, the motorcycle was being driven with two pillion riders in clear violation of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and traffic regulations, which contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Hence, Respondent No.1, being one of the pillion riders, also contributed to the accident and the principle of contributory negligence squarely applies. 8. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that neither any disability certificate issued by a competent Medical Board on record nor was any qualified doctor examined to prove the extent or nature of injury suffered by Respondent No.1. Therefore, the alleged injury stands unsubstantiated. In view of the above, the findings of the learned Tribunal fastening liability on the appellant–insurance company and awarding excessive compensation without proper proof of injury and without considering contributory negligence are perverse and contrary to law. The impugned award, therefore, deserves to be set aside to 1 (2018) 14 SCC 663 6 the extent it fastens liability on the appellant–insurance company. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents/Claimant supported the impugned award and submitted that the award in question is based on the proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence which does not call for any interference. 10. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal regarding the occurrence of the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the pleadings and evidence on record and awarded compensation of 53,000/- along with interest @ 8% per ₹ annum, which appears to be just and reasonable. 11. The principal objection raised by the appellant-insurer pertains to the validity of the driving licence of Respondent No.2. It is contended that the driver was not duly authorised to drive a motorcycle with gear, and hence there was a breach of the policy conditions. However, even if such a technical breach is presumed, the law is well-settled that the insurer cannot avoid liability towards third-party claimants on the ground of licence irregularity. 12. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited (surpa)., the Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the liability of the insurer in cases involving breach of policy conditions, 7 particularly with respect to the driver not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. It is pertinent to refer to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the judgment, which are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: “21. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing a driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving a totally different class of vehicle, which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent and it is directed that the appellant Insurance Company though not liable to pay the d amount of compensation, but in the nature of this case it shall satisfy the award and shall have the right to recover the amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner of the vehicle viz. Respondent 8, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him nor has he chosen to appear before this Court to contest this appeal. This direction is given in the light of the judgments of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit e Kaur and Deddappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” 13. Therefore, the Insurance Company/appellant is liable to pay the 8 awarded compensation to the claimant in the first instance. However, the appellant-insurer shall be at liberty to recover the amount so paid from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law, after establishing the breach of policy conditions and proving that the driver was not duly licensed at the time of the accident. 14. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The appellant-insurer is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within a period of six (6) weeks from today before the learned Claims Tribunal, if not already deposited. Upon such deposit, the Claims Tribunal shall disburse the same to the claimant(s) as per law. 15. Further, this Court directs the insurance company to first pay the total amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and then to recover the same from the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle by filing execution petition before the concerned Claims Tribunal. The right of recovery from the driver and/or owner is reserved in favour of the appellant-insurer. 16. Records of the Claims Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judge Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA