1 2025:CGHC:39815 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1527 of 2019 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Manager, E-8, Epip, Riico Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302022 (Insurer Of Pickup No. M.P.- 18/g.A./3472), District : Jaipur, Rajasthan ... Appellant Versus 1 - Chhedilal Vishwakarma S/o Shri Jagannath Vishwakarma Aged About 51 Years R/o Khongapani, Thana Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Premvati Vishwakarma W/o Chhedilal Vishwakarma Aged About 45 Years R/o Khongapani, Thana Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Rajendra Maurya S/o Ramprasad Maurya Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Loco Colony, Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Pickup No. M.P.-18/g.A./3472), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Sundarlal Yadav S/o Shri Siyaram Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Chanwaridand, Thana Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Pickup No. M.P.-18/g.A./3472) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Ramsajivan, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 08/08/2025 SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the impugned award passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.02.2019 in Claim Case No. 15/2018 whereby, the learned claims tribunal allowed the application filed by the claimant seeking compensation against the death of Samarjeet Vishwakarma in part and awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,12,600/- and fastened liability to pay compensation upon Appellant/Insurance Company. 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that Samarjeet Vishwakarma on 02.09.2017 at about 11:45 P.M. was traveling on his motorcycle along with his friend and was going towards his house. When he reached near Forest Depot, Chanwaridand, one pick-up vehicle bearing no. MP 18 GA 3472 driven by the Non-applicant No. 1 dashed the motorcycle of the Samarjeet Vishwakarma, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries over his person and succumbed to the injuries. 3. The claimant/parents of the deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act, 1988) seeking compensation of Rs. 61,50,000/- against the death of their son pleading therein, that the deceased was working with the Writer Safeguard Company and earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. 4. Non-applicant No. 1 (Driver) did not appear before the learned Claims Tribunal and he was proceeded ex parte. 5. Non-applicant No. 2 (owner of the offending vehicle) appeared before the learned Claims Tribunal submitted reply denying the facts pleaded 3 in the claim application and further pleaded that the Non-applicant No. 1 was an experienced and skilled driver. Before engaging him, test of his driving was also taken. After accident, Driver/Non-Applicant No. 1 informed that he was driving the offending vehicle i.e. pick-up cautiously, however, the driver of the motorcycle while driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently dashed with the pick-up vehicle. At the time of accident, 03 persons were traveling on motorcycle. There was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 6. Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company also submitted reply to the claim application denying the facts pleaded in the claim application. It was pleaded that the documents of the motor vehicle and license of the driver has not been forwarded to the Insurance Company by owner of the offending vehicle. It is the duty of the driver and owner to produce the relevant documents of the offending vehicle and copy of license. Accident was a result of negligence on the part of driver of the motorcycle. Non-Applicant No. 1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving license. Police after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 3/181, 5/180 of the Act, 1988 along with the provisions under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 7. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal allowed the claim application in part, held the Non-applicant No. 1 (Driver) of the offending vehicle to be rash and negligent. Death of late Samarjeet Vishwakarma due to motor-accidental injuries because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Non-applicant No. 1. Contributory negligence 4 and breach of policy conditions were not found to be proved, awarded sum of Rs. 7,12,600/- as compensation. 8. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in deciding the issue whether the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions, in negative. He contended that the learned Claims Tribunal errd in not considering that legible copy of license of the Non-applicant No. 1 was not produced. He submits that during investigation of the crime also, neither the Non-applicant No. 1 (Driver) nor Non-applicant No. 2 (owner) have produced the copy of the license before the police and therefore, at the time of seizure of the other articles and documents, copy of the license has not been seized by the police during investigation. Final report/charge-sheet against the Non-applicant No. 1 is submitted mentioning offence under Section 3/181, 5/180 of the Act, 1988. 9. He contended that along with reply to the claim application, Non- applicant No. 2 has not produced copy of license. Photocopy of the license has stated to be proved, is not legible and readable. Name of the licensee as mentioned therein, description of licensing authority is not clearly visible. In the above facts of the case, Appellant/Insurance Company could not able to verify the particulars of license. 10.Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 opposes the submission made by counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company and would submit that in the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has clearly observed that photocopy of license of the Non-applicant No. 1 was submitted by owner of the offending vehicle. However, even having the copy of the license in the record, Appellant/Insurance company failed to 5 verify the same and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in recording a finding that the Appellant/Insurance Company failed to prove the pleadings of breach of policy conditions which is on appreciation of evidence. 11.Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 & 2 would support the impugned award. 12.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 13.The Appellant/Insurance Company raised sole ground, that the copy of the license was not available in the record and nor it was supplied to the Insurance Company under the provisions of the Act, 1988. 14.Perusal of the record would show that the Appellant/Insurance Company has taken specific plea in its reply that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions as on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving license. Police after completion of investigation, submitted final report/charge-sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction which is filed as Ex. A/2. Charge-sheet was also filed for offence punishable under Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the Act, 1988 along with other offences as mentioned therein. Section 3 of the Act, 1988 provides for necessity of driving license and it is mentioned “no person shall drive a motorcycle in any public place unless, he holds an effective driving license issued to him, authorizing him to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive the transport vehicle unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do”. 15.Section 181 of the Act, 1988 provides that driving vehicle in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 to be punishable for a period 6 which may extent by 03 months or with fine or with both. Section 5/180 is an offence permitting a person to drive the vehicles who does not satisfy the provisions under Section 3 or Section 4. 16.It is not in dispute that the Non-applicant No. 2 engaged Non-applicant No. 1 as driver of his vehicle. It is for him to keep legible copy of license of the driver engaged with him so as to produce, as and when it is required by the authority of the State or any officials of the Insurance Company with whom his vehicle was insured. In not obtaining legible copy of license on record by the Non-applicant No. 2, it cannot be said that the Non-applicant No. 2 (owner of the offending vehicle) has acted diligently and has discharged his duty responsibly in engaging Non- Applicant No. 1 as driver for his vehicle. 17.Unless and until, legible and readable details/particulars of the driving license is available in record, onus will not shift on the other side i.e. the Insurance Company to say that it failed to prove that, Non-applicant No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving license. The onus is only upon the driver or owner of offending vehicle to produce the license or the copy of the license before the Claims Tribunal which is in a good readable condition. Copy license which is available in the record of the claim case is not legible and readable copy. Even the name of the licensee as mentioned therein is not properly readable. The provisions under Section 133 of the Act, 1988 casts duty upon the owner of the offending vehicle to give information on the demands of any police officer authorized in his behalf by the State Government give all information regarding the name and address of, and the license held by, the driver or conductor which is in his possession or put by reasonable diligence be ascertained by him. 7 18.Section 134 of the Act, 1988 casts duty upon the driver in case of accident or injury to a person to produce the information in writing to the insurer, the insurance policy number and the period of its validity at the time and place of motor accident, particulars of persons injured or killed, name of the driver and the particulars of his driving license. In case at hand, from the evidence available on record, it is appearing that neither the Non-applicant No. 1 nor the Non-applicant No. 2 had complied with the provisions of Section 133 & 134 of the Act, 1988, therefore, in the above facts of the case, it cannot be expected from the Appellant/Insurance Company to prove the defence as pleaded in the reply, that the Non-applicant No. 2 was not possessed with the valid and effective driving license. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to prove that Non-applicant No. 1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving license and accordingly, failed to prove that there was breach of policy conditions is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is set-aside. 19.It is held that the Non-applicant No. 1 and the Non-applicant No. 2 failed to produce copy of the driving license before the learned Claims Tribunal or before the police officer during the course of investigation of the crime and therefore, it would be deemed that the Non-applicant No. 1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and the offending vehicle was being driven by a person not possessed with valid and effective driving license which will be breach of policy conditions. It is ordered accordingly. 20.Accordingly, the Appellant/Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation and its liability is 8 fastened upon the Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 (Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle). 21.However, taking support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. reported in AIR (2004) SC 1531 and Shamanna & Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650, I find it appropriate to direct the the Appellant/Insurance Company to first satisfy the amount of compensation as awarded and thereafter, to recover the same from driver and owner of the offending vehicles i.e. the non-applicants No. 1 & 2. This Court further directs that for recovery of the amount, insurer will not be required to file separate suit, but can recover the compensation so paid, as per directives given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan & Ors. reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224. 22. In the result, appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed. Impugned award is modified to the extent as mentioned above. 23. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey