1 2025:CGHC:54872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 197 of 2023 Ashok Mourya, S/o. Late Sahariya Das, Aged About 22 Years, R/o. Village Panduka, Outpost Jalbandha, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Appellant versus 1 - Indrajeet Manikpuri, S/o. Anjor Das Manikpuri, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Ward No. 1, Shanti Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle Car No. C.G. 08 Z 6638) 2 - Anjor Das Manikpuri, S/o. Narayan Das, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Ward No. 1, Shanti Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Owner Of Vehicle Car No. C.G. 08 Z 6638) 3 - National Insurance Company, Branch Manager, Address Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle Car No. C.G. 08 Z 6638) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Kunwar Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.N.Nande, Advocate ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.11.12 16:09:07 +0530 2 MAC No. 40 of 2023 National Insurance Company, Branch Manager, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Through Authorized Signatory, Officer In Charge, T.P. Hub Divisional Office, Vyapar Vihar Road, Above Canara Bank Bilaspur (C.G.) (N.A. No. 03) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Ashok Maurya, S/o. Late Sahariya Das, Aged About 22 Years, R/o. Village Panduka, Chowky - Jalbandha, Tehsil Kheragarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Claimant) 2 - Indrajit Manikpuri, S/o. Anjor Das Manikpuri, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Ward No. 1, Shanti Nagar Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (N.A. No. 1) (Driver) 3 - Anjor Das Manikpuri, S/o. Narayan Das, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Ward No. 1, Shanti Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (N.A. No. 2) ( Owner) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.N.Nande, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Kunwar Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 3 11.11.2025 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, therefore, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Claimant Ashok Mourya has preferred MAC No.197/2023 and Insurance Company has preferred MAC No.40/2023. 3. Mr. Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that since the claimant Ashok Mourya was holding the Learner’s Licence, therefore, the insurance company ought to have been exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. 4. Mr. Kunwar Lal Sahu, learned counsel for the claimant, would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is not just and proper, which deserves to be enhanced. 5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- Driver & Owner of the offending vehicle, would support the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the claimant was holding Learner’s Licence to drive the offending vehicle and in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh & Others 1 the driver holding the Learner’s Licence was considered to be duly licenced. So far as the vehicle being driven by a person having Learner’s Licence is concerned, the vehicle should be affixed with letter ‘L’ on front side as well as on the rear side. It has been further held that the insurance company has failed to prove that the vehicle was not affixed with letter ‘L’. Since the witness of the insurance company Dr. Vijay Kumar was not in the vehicle, therefore, he could not say whether it was affixed with letter ‘L’ or not ? Therefore, the insurance company has rightly been fastened liability to pay the amount of compensation. As such, the appeal of the insurance company has no merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. 8. So far as the claimant’s appeal is concerned, taking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to enhance 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 5 Rs.50,000/- in addition to the amount i.e. Rs. 3,99,342/- already awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 9. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months. The enhanced amount of compensation shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. In view of the above, the appeal of the insurance company i.e. MAC No.40/2023 is dismissed and the appeal of the claimant i.e. MAC No.197/2023 is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok