1 2025:CGHC:54929 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1968 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Korba Through Authorised Signatory Assistant Manager At Divisional Office,2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar ,vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Yogesh Rathore S/o Shri Setram Rathore Aged About 32 Years R/o Kosmanda ,police Station And Tehsil Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Durgesh Shrivas S/o Kedarnath Shrivas Aged About 45 Years R/o Shivnagar Champa ,police Station And Tehsil Champa District Janjgir Champa (Driver), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rupam Khamroi S/o Tapan Khamroi Aged About 24 Years R/o New Shankar Nagar ,indira Gali Dhangadipar ,raigarh ,police Station Kotwali Raigarh ,district Raigarh Chhattisgarh.(Owner), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/11/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Act, 1988, against the award dated 09.05.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District- Janjgir – Champa (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 27/2017 whereby an amount of Rs. 69,926/- has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to the present claim petition, are that on 22.04.2016 at about 03:15 a.m., one Yogesh Rathore, who was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-11/MB-2368, being driven by his friend Parmanand Kashyap, was proceeding from Nayla toward Janjgir. When the motorcycle reached near S.D. Palace, Janjgir, an auto- rickshaw, which had recently been sold and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came from the opposite direction and violently collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the impact, the pillion rider Yogesh Rathore sustained grievous injuries. The tragic accident was immediately reported to the concerned Police Station, upon which Crime No. 195/2016 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of the IPC, read with Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the driver of the offending vehicle. After completion of the statutory investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Criminal Court. It is further the case of the claimant that due to the said accident, the injured Yogesh Rathore filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 3,63,000/- 3 against the driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle. Upon being summoned, the driver entered appearance and filed his written statement, wherein he denied liability by asserting that he was merely an occupant in the auto-rickshaw and that the deceased was actually driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. He also contended that he himself had sustained injuries in the incident. While admitting that the insurance policy was in force, the driver prayed for dismissal of the claim against him. The owner, however, did not appear and was proceeded ex parte. The Insurance Company contested the claim, denying liability on the grounds that the accident took place at 3:15 a.m., whereas the cover note (Ex. N.A-2) indicated that the policy commenced only at 3:50 a.m., and therefore the risk was not covered at the relevant time. It further asserted that the driver of the auto- rickshaw did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, amounting to a fundamental breach of policy conditions. 3. The learned Tribunal framed five issues on the basis of the rival pleadings, recorded evidence of the parties, and ultimately passed an award partly allowing the claim petition. Dissatisfied with the findings regarding liability as well as quantum, the Insurance Company preferred the present appeal, challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company submits that the impugned award is wholly unsustainable, as the learned 4 Claims Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the core defences raised by the insurer. It is contended that the offending vehicle was seized by the police only on 03.05.2016, whereas the accident is alleged to have occurred on 22.04.2016; however, Seizure Memo (Ex. A-9) does not mention either the chassis number or the engine number of the vehicle. Instead, it merely records the presence of a slip affixed between the headlights bearing the description “Sold Bajaj RE MDZA47 AZ 9GC WA 08584”, which does not establish the identity of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that only in a subsequent seizure effected on 30.07.2016 at 18:30 hours, the owner produced a Cash Credit Memo dated 22.04.2016, purportedly reflecting the chassis and engine numbers, and a cumulative reading of both seizure memos clearly indicates that the auto-rickshaw had left the seller’s premises without carrying the requisite documents, due to which no valid seizure of such documents could take place on the first occasion. It is further urged that the non-appearance of the owner before the Tribunal casts a serious cloud of suspicion over his conduct, particularly when it was his legal obligation to place all material documents, including proof of purchase and particulars of the driver, before the Tribunal; hence, in the absence of such material, the owner cannot escape liability merely on the ground that the vehicle was insured. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal ignored the specific defence adopted by the insurer relating to the time of 5 issuance of the cover note. Cover Note (N.A-2) clearly shows that the policy commenced at 3:50 p.m., whereas the accident occurred at 3:15 p.m., meaning the risk was not covered at the relevant time. Additionally, it is argued that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The record shows that the driver held only a learning licence (N.A-1), valid from 30.01.2016 to 29.07.2016, whereas the regular licence (Ex. N.A.(1)-2) became effective only from 12.07.2016, long after the date of accident. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the driver was complying with the conditions attached to a learner’s licence, such as being accompanied by a duly licensed instructor. Such violation constitutes a fundamental breach of statutory provisions and policy terms, which has been wrongly overlooked by the Tribunal. It is further argued that even the quantum awarded is on the higher side. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Court be pleased to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned award insofar as it fastens liability upon the appellant, and exonerate the Insurance Company in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 – claimant has filed cross objection to the appeal and has submitted that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate and suffers from serious errors in appreciation of evidence, thereby warranting enhancement. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the claimant at 6 a meagre Rs. 250 per day, despite the clear assertion in the claim petition that he was earning Rs. 9,000 per month; the mere absence of a formal income certificate should not have led to such an unreasonably low assessment. Even otherwise, the Tribunal itself has later treated the notional income as Rs. 300 per day, which demonstrates perversity in the initial computation of loss of income. It is further contended that the Tribunal has inadequately awarded compensation under the heads of travelling expenses, special diet, medical treatment, and future treatment, despite the claimant having suffered substantial economic loss as a direct consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident. It is therefore submitted that the cross-objector is entitled to enhancement of compensation under various heads, and the findings of the Tribunal on quantum deserve to be modified appropriately. Any other grounds shall be urged at the time of final hearing. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire material available on record, including the documentary exhibits and the reasoning assigned by the learned Claims Tribunal. 7. The controversy in the present appeal revolves around the correctness of the finding of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal fastening liability upon the Insurance Company despite the categorical defence that the driver of the offending auto- rickshaw did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on 7 the date of the accident. 8. The material placed on record shows that the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent No. 5, held only a learner’s licence, valid from 30.01.2016 to 29.07.2016 (Ex. N.A-1). The regular driving licence (Ex. N.A(1)-2) came into effect only from 12.07.2016, much after the accident. Thus, on the date of occurrence, the driver was admittedly driving merely on the strength of a learner’s licence. 9. It is trite law that a learner’s licence is not equivalent to a valid and effective driving licence for the purpose of indemnification under a motor insurance policy. A driver holding a learner’s licence is permitted to drive only upon strict compliance with statutory conditions prescribed under Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, namely, that the vehicle must display the “L” symbol, and more importantly, the driver must be accompanied by an instructor or another person holding a valid and effective driving licence. The insurer produced evidence to show that no such compliance was established, and significantly, the owner and driver failed to lead any rebuttal evidence to demonstrate that the vehicle was being driven under supervision or that the statutory preconditions were fulfilled. 10. The conduct of the owner in remaining ex parte throughout the proceedings further supports the inference that mandatory statutory safeguards were not followed and that relevant documents were deliberately withheld. When the owner fails to 8 appear and fails to prove that the driver was duly authorised and qualified to drive, the natural consequence is that the insurer cannot be burdened with liability arising from such a breach. The Supreme Court has consistently held that driving a transport/commercial vehicle without a valid and effective licence amounts to a fundamental breach of policy conditions, absolving the insurer of liability. The auto-rickshaw in the present case is a transport vehicle, and therefore a learner’s licence, unaccompanied by a qualified instructor, cannot be treated as sufficient compliance. 11. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the legal consequences flowing from this breach and erred in fastening liability upon the insurer. Once a fundamental breach is established, the insurer stands absolved irrespective of the outcome of the Section 170 application. 12. In view of the above analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding of the learned Tribunal fastening liability on the Insurance Company is legally unsustainable. The breach of policy and statutory conditions is clear and established. Accordingly, liability must be fastened jointly and severally upon the owner (respondent No. 4) and driver (respondent No. 5) of the offending auto-rickshaw. 13. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Akula Narayana vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2377, wherein it 9 was held as under “12. Where the contract of insurance is not disputed, even on breach of insurance conditions, this Court had allowed recovery of compensation from the insurer by giving right to the insurer to recover the same from the vehicle owner. The pay and recover principle has been consistently followed even though it was doubted in a reference which remained unanswered. Taking a conspectus of various pronouncements, this Court recently in Rama Bai v. Amit Minerals (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2067) again applied the said principle and while allowing the appeal of the claimant directed that the insurance company shall satisfy the award and may recover from the insured. Following the aforesaid decisions, we deem it appropriate to allow the appeal by directing that the first respondent (i.e., the insurer) shall satisfy the award, though, however, it can recover the amount so paid from the insured (i.e., owner of the vehicle).” 14. In view of the above, the insurance company is directed to pay the awarded compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition in the first instance, and shall be entitled to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. 15. The appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company is allowed to the above extent and direction of the Claims Tribunal fastening liability upon the insurance company is set aside. The driver and 10 owner of the vehicle are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded. 16. So far as the cross-appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 – claimant is concerned, it assails the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal on the ground that the assessment of monthly income is erroneous and the amounts awarded under various conventional heads are inadequate. The claimant submits that the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the injured at Rs. 7,500/- without reference to the applicable minimum wages, and further failed to award just and reasonable compensation under the heads of assistance, transportation, special diet, pain and suffering, and future medical treatment. 17. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the claimant and perused the material placed on record. 18. The accident occurred on 22.04.2016. As per the Minimum Wages Notification applicable between 01.04.2016 and 30.09.2016, the monthly wages for an unskilled worker stood at Rs. 6,170/-. In absence of any documentary proof of higher income, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income by adopting the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident. The assessment of Rs. 7,500/- per month by the Tribunal is therefore not sustainable. Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured is reassessed as Rs. 6,170/- per month in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act for the relevant period. 11 19. Having examined the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, the duration of his treatment, and the inconvenience and hardship caused to him during the period of recovery, this Court is of the considered view that the amounts awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal under several ancillary heads are on the lower side and do not constitute just and reasonable compensation. 20. Considering the overall circumstances, the compensation under these heads deserves to be suitably enhanced. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards assistance charges for the period during which the claimant was incapacitated and required help in performing daily activities. A further sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded towards transportation expenses incurred by the claimant in travelling for medical treatment. Towards special diet, which the claimant was required to take for proper recovery, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is granted. For pain, suffering, and trauma endured due to the accident and the consequent medical procedures, an enhanced amount of Rs. 30,000/- is considered appropriate. Additionally, keeping in view the medical opinion suggesting the possibility of continued medical care, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards future medical treatment. These enhancements, collectively, are granted in addition to the compensation already awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 12 21. Accordingly, the claimant would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 1,82,140/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of income (for two months) Rs. 12,214/- 02 Towards Assistance Charges Rs. 13,000/- 03 Towards Medical Treatment Rs. 33,926/- 04 Towards Transportation Expenses Rs. 7,000/- 05 Towards Special Diet Rs. 21,000/- 06 Towards Pain, Suffering, and Trauma Endured Rs. 40,000/- 07 Towards Future Treatment Rs. 55,000/- Total Rs. 1,82,140/- 22. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 1,82,140/-. After deducting Rs. 69,926/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 1,12,214/-. 23. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,12,214/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. Thus, the cross-appeal filed by respondent No. 1 is partly allowed. The compensation is enhanced to the extent indicated above. 13 24. The rest of the findings of the learned Tribunal on quantum remain undisturbed. It is clarified that the enhanced amount shall form part of the total compensation payable, and the direction already issued in paragraphs 13 to 15 of this judgment regarding “pay and recover” shall equally apply to the enhanced compensation. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna