1 2025:CGHC:37894 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 687 of 2020 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited D.O. 3, R.K. Plaza, Pachpedi Naka, Ring Road No.1, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Motorcycle Bearing No. C.G.-04-Lu-9582), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Versus 1 - Smt. Suman Dhruv Wd/o Late Gyansingh Dhruv Aged About 29 Years R/o Dhan Bada, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Civil Line, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Muskan Dhruv D/o Late Gyansingh Dhruv Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Suman Dhruv Wd/o Late Gyansingh Dhruv, R/o Dhan Bada, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Civil Line, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shivani Dhruv D/o Late Gyansingh Dhruv Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Suman Dhruv Wd/o Late Gyansingh Dhruv, R/o Dhan Bada, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Civil Line, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Saniya Dhruv D/o Late Gyansingh Dhruv Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Suman Dhruv Wd/o Late Gyansingh Dhruv, R/o Dhan Bada, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Civil Line, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Soniya Dhruv Wd/o Late Itwari Ram Dhruv Aged About 58 Years R/o Dhan Bada, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Civil Line, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 6 - Chandu Dhruv S/o Itwari Dhruv Aged About 28 Years R/o Dhan Bada, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Civil Line, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Ganesh Dhruv S/o Late Gyansingh Dhruv Aged About 18 Years R/o Dhan Bada, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Civil Line, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 8 - Subhash Ransingh S/o Late Sudhakar Rao Ransingh Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Maratha Mangal Bhawan, Marathapara, Dhamtari, Police Station Kotwali, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Non- Applicant No.1) (Driver Of Motorcycle Bearing No. C.G.-04-Lu-9582), 9 - Manoj Choudhary S/o Late Madan Choudhary Aged About 50 Years R/o A-12, Sector-1, Awanti Vihar, Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Non- Applicant No.2 (Insured Of Motorcycle Bearing No. C.G.-04-Lu-9582) ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 9 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 01/08/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the liability to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/- fastened upon it by the learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 17.12.2019 in Claim Case No. 162/2018. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 20.12.2017, when Gyan Singh Dhruw @ Gyani was wandering near Forest Sanjeevan Office at about 09:45 P.M., a motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 LU 9582 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the offending vehicle) driven rashly and negligently by the Non-Applicant No. 1, dashed him, 3 due to which, Gyan Singh Dhruw suffered grievous injuries over his person. He was taken to hospital where doctor declared him brought dead. Claimants have filed a claim application seeking compensation of Rs. 25,50,000/- stating that the deceased was doing the work of auto driving and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. 3. Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 denied the pleadings made in the claim application. 4. Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company submitted reply to the claim application denying the facts as pleaded in the claim application and further submitted that on the date of accident, the motorcycle was being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy as the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of facts and evidences brought on record by the respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- as compensation and fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation jointly and severally upon the Non-applicants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company overlooking the fact that on the date of accident, the deceased was not possessing valid and effective driving license. She contended that in para no. 25, learned Claims Tribunal has though recorded that the initial license was issued for the period from 19.08.2013 to 04.02.2014 and thereafter, it was renewed vide Ex. D/5 (C) on 06.01.2018 whereas, the date of accident was 20.12.2017 and therefore, on the date of accident, the license though issued earlier in favour of the Non- applicant No. 1 was not effective on the date of accident. 4 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 9 would oppose the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding with regard to license, upon appreciation of the facts and evidences brought on record and hence, it does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of claim case. 9. The short question is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that on the date of accident, the Non-applicant No. 1 driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving license. Exhibit D/2 is the extract of the driving license issued in the name of Non-Applicant No. 1, perusal of which would show that initially, license was issued on 07.12.1994 for non-transport vehicle motorcycle with gear and light motor vehicle. Duplicate license was issued from District Transport Office, Dhamtari with endorsement dated 19.08.2013 which was valid till 04.02.2014. Renewal date of the driving license is also placed on record and mentioned as 06.01.2018 till 05.01.2023. 10.From perusal of the dates as mentioned in the driving license, it is clear that from 04.02.2014 till 06.01.2018, the license issued in name of the Non-applicant No. 1 was not effective as it was not renewed during that period. The photocopy of the license is placed on record as Ex. D/5. In the said document, date of issue is mentioned as 07.12.1994 and was valid till 05.01.2023 for light motor vehicle. Even if it is considered that the license issued on 07.12.1994 for a period of 20 years initially, it will come to an end in the year 2014. Since, 2014 till 2018, there is no endorsement of renewal or the further endorsement date and its 5 validity period till 05.01.2018, when it was endorsed for a period till 05.01.2023. 11.Insurance Policy bears the driver’s clause wherein, it has been mentioned that any person including the insurer provided that a person holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such license. Admittedly, on the date of accident, the Non-applicant No. 1 was not having the effective driving license and therefore, in view of the specific clause under the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured. The learned Claims Tribunal therefore, erred in fastening liability jointly and severally upon the upon the Non- applicants to satisfy the amount of compensation and the Non- applicant No. 3 being insurer, having the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation, the said finding is perverse to the evidence available on record and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, it is set-aside. 12.For the foregoing discussion, the Appellant/Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to satisfy the amount of compensation and it is held that the Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 would be liable to satisfy the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. However, considering the decision of the 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 6 compensation and thereafter, to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicles i.e. the Non-applicants No. 1 & 2. 13.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. 14.For the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company is allowed. The impugned order stands modified to the extent as mentioned above. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey