(MAC No.1021/2022) 2025:CGHC:48319 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1021 of 2022 1. Twinkle Mutha, D/o Shri Abhay Kumar Mutha, Aged about 23 years. Note (Twinkle Mutha, Wife of Shri Abhay Kumar Mutha mentioned is typo graphical error in impugned Judgment). 2. Karishma Girdhar, W/o Shri Sahil Girdhar, Aged about 27 years. 3. Karan Kumar Mutha, S/o Shri Abhay Kumar Mutha, Aged about 30 years. All are R/o House No.34, Panchsheel Nagar, Chhattisgarh Club, In front of Civil Line, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Shri Abhay Kumar Mutha, S/o Shri Uttamchand Mutha, Aged about 58 years, R/o House No.34, Panchsheel Nagar, Chhattisgarh, In front of Club, Civil Lines, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Driver) 2. Shri Traders, Through Proprietor Smt. Sushila Mutha, Address 75, Mahalaxmi Market, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisagrh. Indira Gandhi Professional Premises, Pandri Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Office No.3, R.K. Plaza, Panchpedi Naka, Ring Road No.1, Tahsil, City and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate. SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.09.22 18:42:32 +0530 (MAC No.1021/2022) Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 19/09/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) has been preferred by the appellants herein/ claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 11-7-2022 passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.638/2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹ 10,84,000/- as compensation for the death of Urmila Mutha while exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability of paying compensation. 2. Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein/claimants, would submit that since the driver did not have valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others1, liability ought to have been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 3. Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 herein/Insurance Company, would submit that it would serve no purpose, as the driver is the father of claimants No.1 & 3, therefore, the principle of pay and recover would not apply. 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 (MAC No.1021/2022) 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant herein and considered his submissions and also went though the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Swaran Singh’s case (supra) has been followed in the matter of Shamanna and another v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others2 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: - “6. As per the decision in Swaran Singh case, onus is always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was breach of policy conditions. Where the driver did not possess the valid driving licence and there are breach of policy conditions, “pay and recover” can be ordered in case of third-party risks. The Tribunal is required to consider “as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver … does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case”. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned award is modified and it is held that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal be firstly paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants and thereafter, it would be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. 7. The appeal is partly allowed and the award impugned is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Soma 2 (2018) 9 SCC 650