Page No.1 of 4 IN MAC-1957-2023 2025:CGHC:57370 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1957 of 2023 [Arising out of award dt. 07.08.2023, passed in Claim Case No.527/2020 (Shiva Dhruw and others v. Govind Sahu and other) by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG)] United India Insurance Company Limited Krishna Complex, Near Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus 1 - Shiva Dhruw S/o Late Shri Manglu Dhruw Aged About 47 Years R/o Ahead Of Chowk, Village Sejbahar, Ward No. 18, Near Kamaksha Temple, P.S. Mujgahan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Hemin Dhruw W/o Shri Shiva Dhruw Aged About 40 Years R/o Ahead Of Chowk, Village Sejbahar, Ward No. 18, Near Kamaksha Temple, P.S. Mujgahan, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shail Kumari Dhruw D/o Late Shri Manglu Dhruw Aged About 21 Years R/o Ahead Of Chowk, Village Sejbahar, Ward No. 18, Near Kamaksha Temple, P.S. Mujgahan, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Govind Sahu S/o Shri Chinta Ram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dhondra, P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Girja Shankar S/o Shri Daulal Kosle Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Chhachapairi, Barambala Chowk, P.S. Mujgahan, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent-1-3 : Mr. CR Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-4 : Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Advocate For Respondent-5 : None through served. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 4 IN MAC-1957-2023 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 25.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dt. 07.08.2023, passed in Claim Case No.527/2020 (Shiva Dhruw and others v. Govind Sahu and other) by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) on ground that the learned Claims Tribunal committed grave legal error in not applying the principle of pay and recovery despite holding that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the policy condition. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would make sole submission that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not applying the principle of pay and recovery under the facts and circumstances of the present case despite holding that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the policy condition (i.e. without valid and effective permit). He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others 1 to bolster his submissions. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be modified to that extent. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order by opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and prays for dismissal of this 1 (2018) 7 SCC 558 Page No.3 of 4 IN MAC-1957-2023 appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. The Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh (supra) has clearly held that use of vehicle in absence of permit is fundamental breach of the policy condition and applied the principle of pay and recovery and observed 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 Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Lakhmi Chand [Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 45] 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. Page No.4 of 4 IN MAC-1957-2023 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 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 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 6. In the present case also, admittedly, the offending vehicle was being plied in terms of the policy condition (i.e. without valid and effective permit) on the date and time of the accident and, therefore, in light of the decision of Amrit Paul Singh (supra) it would be expedient to direct the appellant – Insurance Company to firstly pay the entire amount of compensation along with interest to the claimants within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, thereafter, recover it from the owner (i.e. respondent No.05 herein). It is ordered accordingly. 7. With aforesaid direction and modification with regard to the order of pay and recover, this appeal stands finally disposed of. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if