1 2025:CGHC:53004 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2002 of 2019 * - Branch Manager Branch Office National Insurance Company Limited, Kamdi Line Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ......N. A. No.3 ... Appellant Versus 1 - Vikram Kumar Pradhan S/o Dularam Halba Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Kusumtola, P. C. Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ........Claimant 2 - Vijay S/o Sonuram Halba R/o Village- Kunjkanhar, P. C. Doundilohara, District- Balod Chhattisgarh. Through Shivborvels And Pump Nandai Chowk Rajnandgaon Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ........Driver 3 - Hemant Sahu S/o Late Basant Kumar Sahu Aged 42 years, R/o Shivborvels And Pump Nandai Chowk Rajnandgaon Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ..........Owner ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondents : None appeared, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 30/10/2025 1. The appellant has challenged the liability as well as quantum of award passed the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 41/2016, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.4,09,388/- with interest @ 7% per annum on account of injuries Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.11.03 10:35:37 +0530 2 sustained by the claimant/respondent No. 1 and fastened liability with the Insurance Company/appellant. 2. Mr. B.N. Nande, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that on 03.10.2015 Vikram Kumar Pradhan/claimant was travelling on a Bore-Machine Vehicle bearing registration No. CG 08– L– 3740 and during course of employment sustained injuries in a road accident. He was admitted at Government Hospital, Rajnandgaon and thereafter referred to Sharda Hospital, Rajnandgaon. He remained hospitalized from 04.10.2015 to 17.11.2015. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would argue that the claimant/injured filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.48,00,000/-. 3. Mr. B.N. Nande would further submit that the driver/respondent No. 2 and owner/respondent No. 3 of the offending vehicle filed reply and denied averments made in the claim application and they stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. He would contend that respondents No. 2 and 3 failed to produce driving license to establish the fact that the driver was competent to drive miscellaneous special type of vehicle. Mr. B.N. Nande would submit that the primary burden was on driver and owner of the offending vehicle to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did have valid and effective driving license to drive miscellaneous special type of vehicle according to Section 10 (2) (j) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He would submit that as respondents No. 2 and 3 failed to discharge their primary burden and thus, the learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law while fastening liability with the Insurance Company. He would further submit that no premium was paid to cover risk of 3 labourers including injured, therefore also the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award. He would contend that the injured was gratuitous passenger and this fact has not been considered by the learned Claims Tribunal. He would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation at higher side. He would pray to set aside/modify the impugned award. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pappu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208, wherein it is held that the primary burden would be on the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to establish the fact that the vehicle was being driven by driver who had a valid driving license and thereafter burden would shift on the insurance company to rebut said defence. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection. 5. In the present matter, though the driver and owner filed their reply, but they did not appear in the witness box. They also failed to produce driving license to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did have valid and effective driving license to drive miscellaneous special type of vehicle. 6. With regard to next contention made Mr. B.N. Nande as copy of the Insurance Policy was not produced before the learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, it cannot be inferred that no premium was paid to cover risk of labourers. 7. In the matter of Pappu (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the defences available to the Insurance Company under 4 Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 held that the Insurance Company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorized person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on the Insurance Company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time. The relevant paragraphs no. 12 and 13 are reproduced herein below:- “12. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 297 has noticed the defences available to the insurance company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorised person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on the insurance company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time. 13. In the present case, Respondent No. 1 owner of the offending vehicle merely raised a vague plea in the written statement that the offending Vehicle No. DIL 5955 was being driven by a person having valid driving licence. He did not disclose the name of the driver and his other details. Besides, Respondent 1 did not enter the witness box or examine any witness in support of this plea. Respondent 2 insurance company in the written statement has plainly refuted that plea and also asserted that the offending vehicle was not driven by an authorised person and having valid driving licence. Respondent 1 owner of the offending vehicle did not produce any evidence except a driving licence of one Joginder Singh, without any specific stand taken in the pleadings or in the evidence that the same Joginder Singh was, in fact, authorised to drive the vehicle in question at the relevant time. Only then would onus shift, requiring Respondent 2 insurance company to 5 rebut such evidence and to produce other evidence to substantiate its defence. Merely producing a valid insurance certificate in respect of the offending truck was not enough for Respondent 1 to make the insurance company liable to discharge his liability arising from rash and negligent driving by the driver of his vehicle. The insurance company can be fastened with the liability on the basis of a valid insurance policy only after the basic facts are pleaded and established by the owner of the offending vehicle that the vehicle was not only duly insured but also that it was driven by an authorised person having a valid driving licence. Without disclosing the name of the driver in the written statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability. The insurance company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle.” 8. With regard to quantum of compensation, as the Insurance Company has challenged liability part, therefore, there is no need to enter into that aspect of the matter. 9. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, but the driver and owner of the offending vehicle failed to prove the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving licence to drive miscellaneous special type of vehicle, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to liability is modified and liability is fastened with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 10. The Insurance Company shall first indemnify the award and thereafter may recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. 6 11. It is informed by Mr. B.N. Nande that 75% of award amount has already been deposited by the Insurance Company. Therefore, Insurance Company shall deposit remaining amount of compensation within a period of 60 days and thereafter, the Insurance Company would be at liberty to recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 12. With afore-stated discussions, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti