1 2025:CGHC:57519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1989 of 2019  Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager Rahul Complex Near Dhimrapur Road Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Now Through Assistant Manager (Legal) Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company, 2nd Floor Simaran Tower, In Front Of Lic Building, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Kheek Bai W/o Udey Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khadgaon, Police Chowki Jobi, Tehsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Neha (Minor) D/o Udey Ram Aged About 15 Years They Are Through Their Natural Guardian Grand Mother Smt. Parwati W/o Jor Singh, R/o Village Khadgaon, Police Chowki Jobi, Tehsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. Mukesh (Minor) S/o Udey Ram Aged About 12 Years They Are Through Their Natural Guardian Grand Mother Smt. Parwati W/o Jor Singh, R/o Village Khadgaon, Police Chowki Jobi, Tehsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. Yuvraj (Minor) S/o Udey Ram Aged About 10 Years They Are Through Their Natural Guardian Grand Mother Smt. Parwati W/o Jor Singh, R/o Village Khadgaon, Police Chowki Jobi, Tehsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.27 16:52:32 +0530 2 5. Smt. Parwati Rathiya W/o Late Jor Singh Rathya Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Khadgaon, Police Chowki Jobi, Tehsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6. Lakhan Bareth S/o Rameshwar Bareth Aged About 25 Years Occupation Driver R/o Meengaon Police Chowki Jobi Tehsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 7. Lalkeshwar S/o Kanhaiyalal Aged About 25 Years Occupation Owner, R/o Village Meengaon Police Chowki Jobi Tehsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 6 & 7 : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 26.11.2025 1) The appellant–Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim No. 02/2017 dated 24.07.2019, by which liability to pay a total compensation of Rs. 4,07,500/- has been fastened upon the driver and owner of offending vehicle as well as Insurance Company. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 11.5.2016 at about 6:00 p.m., the offending vehicle TATA Magic bearing registration No. CG-13-UH-7175 being driven by respondent No. 6 herein in rash 3 and negligent manner, rammed into a hotel. In the accident, the customers sitting in the hotel including Jor Singh Rathiya sustained injuries. Jor Singh Rathiya died during course of treatment. Initially, son and wife of the deceased filed claim application. During pendency of claim case, son of the deceased, namely, Udey Ram died and his legal heirs were substituted. Thus, wife of the deceased and legal heirs of son of the deceased jointly contested the claim case. They pleaded that age of the deceased was 70 years and he used to earn Rs. 2,80,000/- annually. Claimant claimed a total sum of Rs. 19,47,761/- 3) Driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement and denied the averments with regard to income of the deceased. They pleaded that offending vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company and driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving license. Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that offending vehicle was being plied in absence of mandatory documents and there was no valid and effective driving license in favor of driver of the offending vehicle on the date of accident. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter, award impugned was passed. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective license. He further submits that driver and owner of 4 offending vehicle could not adduce the driving license before the learned Claims Tribunal despite repeated opportunities. He contends that as the driver of offending vehicle did not have valid and effective license, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the driver and owner of offending vehicle. He prays to modify the award accordingly. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. They submit that Insurance Company failed to prove the fact that driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving license, therefore learned Claims Tribunal fastened the liability with Insurance Company. They further submit that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7) Admittedly, driver and owner of offending vehicle failed to produce driving license before learned Claims Tribunal. Learned Claims Tribunal while deciding this issue in para-12 held that vehicle was insured with Insurance Company. RC Book, fitness certificate, permit and insurance papers were seized by police. 8) Though, driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license on the date of accident, learned Claims Tribunal fastened the liability with the Insurance Company holding 5 that there was negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. The finding with regard to negligence on the part of driver appears to be proper but at the same time, learned Claims Tribunal erred in law while fastening the liability with the Insurance Company. 9) It is abundantly clear that offending vehicle was being driven in breach of insurance policy, therefore learned Claims Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability with the driver and owner of that vehicle with a stipulation that Insurance Company shall satisfy the award first and recover it from driver and owner. 10) In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The appellant Insurance Company is made liable to pay the awarded compensation to the claimants, however, it shall have the right to realize the said amount of compensation from respondents No. 6 and 7, driver and owner, respectively, in accordance with law. In conclusion, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to pay/disburse the awarded compensation to the claimants first and recover the same from driver and owner. 11) There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE A j i n k y a