1 (MAC No.1062 of 2023, MAC No.1041 of 2023 & MAC No.1034 of 2023) 2025:CGHC:47254 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1062 of 2023 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Deputy Manager, In Charge T.P. Hub, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., T.P. Hub Office, 1st Floor L I C Building Magar Para Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Neelkant Sahu S/o - Shriram Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o- Dhaurabhata, P.S. - Hirri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Atma Ram Prajapati S/o- Late Sitaram Prajapati Aged About 55 Years R/o - Ward No. 03, Pathariya, P.S. And Tehsil- Pathariya, Distt. - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Driver). 3 - Uttam Yadav S/o - Kanhaiya Lal Yadav R/o- Ward No. 05, Azad Nagar Chowk, Pathariya, P.S. And Tehsil- Pathariya, Distt. - Mungeli, C.G. (Owner). --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1041 of 2023 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Deputy Manager, In Charge T.P. Hub, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., T.P. Hub Office, 1st Floor Lic Building Magar Para Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.03) ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Chaitu Ram Yadav S/o Bijau Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Dhaurabhata, Police Station Hirri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.09.16 17:20:30 +0530 2 (MAC No.1062 of 2023, MAC No.1041 of 2023 & MAC No.1034 of 2023) 2 - Atma Ram Prajapati S/o Late Sitaram Prajapati Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No.03, Pathariya, Police Station And Tehsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) (Non- Applicant No.1) 3 - Uttam Yadav S/o Kanhaiya Lal Yadav R/o Ward No.05, Azad Nagar Chowk, Pathariya, Police Station And Tehsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) (Non-Applicant No.2) --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1034 of 2023 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Deputy Manager, In Charge T.P. Hub, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., T.P. Hub Office, 1st Floor L I C Building Magar Para Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Praveen Kumar Verma S/o Ravindra Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Dhaurabhata, P.S. - Hirri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Atma Ram Prajapati S/o Late Sitaram Prajapati Aged About 55 Years R/o - Ward No. 03, Pathariya, P.S. And Tehsil- Pathariya, Distt.- Mungeli, C.G. (Driver). 3 - Uttam Yadav S/o- Kanhaiya Lal Yadav R/o - Ward No. 05, Azad Nagar Chowk, Pathariya, P.S. And Tehsil- Pathariya, Distt.- Mungeli, C.G. (Owner). --- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant :- Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents- Claimants :- Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 15.09.2025 1. Since common question of facts and law are involved, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, these 3 (MAC No.1062 of 2023, MAC No.1041 of 2023 & MAC No.1034 of 2023) three appeals which have arisen out of one accident are clubbed together, heard together and are decided by this common order. 2. The appellant-insurance company has preferred these appeals calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned VI Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, by which the claim applications filed by the claimants for the injuries suffered by them in a motor accident have been allowed and the insurance company has been directed to firstly pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned trial Court has recorded a finding that the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the policy as it did not have valid registration and fitness certificate at the time of incident and thereafter, proceeded to direct the insurance company to firstly pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover it from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, whereas the Claims Tribunal 4 (MAC No.1062 of 2023, MAC No.1041 of 2023 & MAC No.1034 of 2023) ought to have completely exonerated the insurance company from paying the amount of compensation and therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would support the impugned award. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the material available on records with utmost circumspection. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding at para 12 of the impugned award that the offending vehicle bearing No.CG-28-C-0134 did not have valid registration and fitness certificate on the date of accident and therefore, proceeded to direct the insurance company to firstly pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh vs TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited 1 may be noticed herein, where their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly recorded a finding that if the offending vehicle is being plied in violation of terms 1 (2018) 7 SCC 558 5 (MAC No.1062 of 2023, MAC No.1041 of 2023 & MAC No.1034 of 2023) and conditions of the insurance policy, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants first and then recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle and held in para 24 as under:- “24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh2 and Lakhmi Chand3 in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the "Tripitaka", that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had directed 2 (2004) 3 SCC 297 3 (2016) 3 SCC 100 6 (MAC No.1062 of 2023, MAC No.1041 of 2023 & MAC No.1034 of 2023) that the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 7. In view of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh (supra), the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants first and thereafter recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle is a correct finding of facts based on the materials available on record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. As such, I do not find any good ground to entertain these appeals. 8. Accordingly, all the three appeals deserve to be and are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!