1 2025:CGHC:53159 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1642 of 2017 Reserved on : 18.07.2025 Delivered on : 31.10.2025  Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Near Ambedkar Chowk, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ..............Non- Applicant No.2 --- Appellant versus 1. Smt. Uddeshwari W/o Late Shivlal, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kumda, P.S. Vishrampur, Tahsil Surguja, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Ayush Kumar S/o Late Shivlal, Aged About 2 Months, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Uddeshwari, R/o Village Kumda, P.S. Vishrampur, Tahsil Surguja, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Jagmen W/o Late Ramnarayan, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kumda, P.S. Vishrampur, Tahsil Surguja, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants 4. Nanka Ram S/o Balgovind, Aged About 32 Years R/o Qr. No. 80, Bhandarpara, Bankipur, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver/ Owner --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1572 of 2017  Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Near Ambedkar Chowk, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ..............Non- Applicant No.2 --- Appellant MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.10.31 17:31:29 +0530 2 Versus 1. Smt. Uddeshwari W/o Late Shivlal, Aged About 28 Years R/o Qr. No.80, Bhandarpara, Bankipur, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver/ Owner 2. Ayush Kumar S/o Late Shivlal, Aged About 2 Months, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Uddeshwari, R/o Village Kumda, P.S. Vishrampur, Tahsil Surguja, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Jagmen W/o Late Ramnarayan, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kumda, P.S. Vishrampur, Tahsil Surguja, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants 4. Nanka Ram S/o Balgovind, Aged About 32 Years R/o Qr. No.80, Bhandarpara, Bankipur, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver/ Owner --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas C.A.V. JUDGMENT 1. Both the Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the awards dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) in M.A.C.T. Case No. 46/2017 in case of Smt. Uddeshwari Vs. Nanka Ram & Another & 44/2017 in case of Smt. Uddeshwari & others Vs. Nanka Ram & Another which arise from the same accident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record of the claim case No. 44/2017 are that on 25.06.2016 the deceased Shivlal was going along with his wife and son (Piyush) on his motorcycle towards 3 Kumda Bazar. At about 1:30 PM the offending vehicle Auto bearing Registration No. CG-15-CZ-0373 dashed the motorcycle by driving rashlessly and negligently causing severe injuries and the driver of the motorcycle Shivlal who was aged about 30 years succumbed to death. In other Claim case No. 46/2017 the claimant mother filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor vehicle Act before the claims Tribunal Ambikapur, claiming compensation for death of her son who aged about 6 years. The claimants have filed claim application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,41,000/- and Rs. 6,25,000/- towards compensation for death of Shivlal and Piyush respectively. 3. The appellant Insurance company filed written statement denying the fact of the accident and also contended that the claimants have claimed exaggerated amount of compensation. The insurance company has also contended that the driver of the motor cycle was not having valid license to drive the vehicle. The vehicle was driven in violation of Insurance Policy and without permit or fitness certificate issued by the transport authorities. It has also been contended that in the motorcycle three persons were riding which is violation of the policy, as such, they are not entitled to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, as such prayed for dismissal of the applications. 4. The claimant examined herself and exhibited the documents: Certified Copy of final report (Exhibit P/1), First Information Report (Exhibit P/2), Crime Detail Form (Exhibit P/3), Property Seizure Memo (Exhibit P/4 & P/5), Map Panchyatnama (Exhibit P/6), Autopsy application (Exhibit P/7), Autopsy Report (Exhibit P/8). The 4 Insurance Company examined Ramnath Ram, Assistant Grade-3, RTO Office Ambikapur as (DW-1), Vinay Kumar Singh, Assistant Grade-3, Oriental Insurance Company Branch Ambikapur as (DW- 2) and exhibited the documents: Copy of entry register (Exhibit D/1), Particular of license (Exhibit D/2), Attested copy of Insurance Policy (Exhibit D/3). 5. The DW-1 examined before the trial Court and has stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was having effective license upto 11.07.2016 and thereafter it has not been renewed. The DW-2 has admitted that the policy was valid from 10.03.2016 to 09.03.2017. The learned Claims tribunal after considering the evidence material on record has passed the award of the compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,57,000/- in favour of the claimants in Claim Case No. 44/2017 and in Claim Case No. 46/2017 passed an award of Rs. 2,75,000/- with 9% interest in case the claim amount is not deposited within one month. 6. Being aggrieved with this award, the Insurance Company has filed these two appeals mainly contending that the license was expired on 30.07.2011 and thereafter, it has been renewed on 12.07.2016 approximately after 5 years whereas the license should have been renewed within 30 days, as such, fastening of the liability upon the insurance company is illegal. It has also been contended that the Claims Tribunal should have seen that the permit of the offending vehicle has not been produced before the trial Court, therefore, it is fundamental violation of the Insurance policy, as such, it has been prayed for allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company. 5 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 3 would submit that the impugned award is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The learned Claims Tribunal has recorded its finding that the vehicle was insured from 10.03.2017 to 09.03.2017, as such the insurance policy was very much enforceable and the witness examined DW-1 Assistant Grade-3 of the RTO office has categorically stated before the Claims Tribunal that the driver’s license was initially issued on 31.07.2006 which was valid upto 30.07.2011 and after overwriting in the certificate 2016 has been changed as 2011. The learned Claims Tribunal has also recorded its finding that no explanation for overwriting in the year has been given by the witness. It has also recorded its finding that this witness has stated that entry relating to license of the driver has not been made from his personal information and no register which has been kept in official duty has been placed on record. Thus, it has recorded its finding that the insurance company is unable to prove that there is no valid driving license. Even otherwise, from bare perusal of the driving license of the driver, it is quite vivid that date of birth of the driver Nanka Ram was 01.01.1979 as mentioned in the license and license was issued on 31.07.2006 therefore, as per Section 14(2b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as amended prior to 01.09.2019 in case of any other license (i) if the person obtaining the license either originally or on renewal thereof has not attained 6 the age of 50 years on the date of issuance of driving license or as the case of renewal will be effective for a period of 20 years from the date of such issue or renewal or until the date on which such person attained the age of 50 years. From the records, it is quite vivid that date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the driving license is 01.01.1979 and license was issued on 31.07.2006, therefore, the holder of license will attain the age of 50 years on 31.12.2028, as such the license was very much effective on the date of accident. The record of the case would further demonstrate that author of Exhibit D/1 and D/2 was not examined before the trial Court and the witness has clearly admitted that no information has been recorded according to the personal information of the witness, as such, the learned Claim Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the certificate and recorded its finding that there was a valid license which cannot be found faulty or suffers from illegality or perversity. 10. As such, the findings recorded by the learned Claim Tribunal on the issue of alleged violation of the insurance policy cannot be illegal or suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 11. Even otherwise, the learned Claim Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 2 has recorded its finding that the driver having light Motor vehicle license can drive the transport vehicle without any additional endorsement in the license by the concerned Regional Transport Authority. This finding is inconformity with the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi & 7 Others reported in 2024 INSC 840 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “G. CONCLUSION 125. The licensing regime under the MV Act and the MV Rules, when read as a whole, does not provide for a separate endorsement for operating a ‘Transport Vehicle’, if a driver already holds a LMV license. We must however clarify that the exceptions carved out by the legislature for special vehicles like e-carts and e-rickshaws, or vehicles carrying hazardous goods75, will remain unaffected by the decision of this Court. 126. As discussed earlier in this judgment, the definition of LMV under Section 2(21) of the MV Act explicitly provides what a ‘Transport Vehicle’ ‘means’. This Court must ensure that neither provision i.e. the definition under Section 2(21) or the second part of Section 3(1) which concerns the necessity for a driving license for a ‘Transport Vehicle’ is reduced to a dead letter of law. Therefore, the emphasis on ‘Transport Vehicle’ in the licensing scheme has to be understood only in the context of the ‘medium’ and ‘heavy’ vehicles. This harmonious reading also aligns with the objective of the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2) to simplify the licensing procedure. 127. The above interpretation also does not defeat the broader twin objectives of the MV Act i.e. road safety and ensuring timely compensation and relief for victims of road accidents. The aspect of road safety is earlier discussed at length. An authoritative pronouncement by this Court would prevent insurance companies from taking a technical plea to defeat a legitimate claim for compensation involving an insured vehicle weighing below 7,500 kgs driven by a person holding a driving license of a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class.” 12. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal granted exaggerated amount of compensation to 6 years old child in Claim Case No. 46/2017 is being considered by this Court. The learned Claims Tribunal while awarding the compensation has taken note of the fact that the deceased was aged about 6 years and he has future prospects and accordingly, it has passed the award by applying 15 as multiplier and Rs. 15,000/- as notional income and accordingly, it has 8 assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/- and for loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/- and funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- which is proportionate and not a bonanza but in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Thangavel & Ors. Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited reported in 2025 INSC 949 decided on 08.08.2025 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued guidelines for calculating the compensation of the minor child who has succumbed to death on account of accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor vehicle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 6 and 7 has held as under: “6. We are of the opinion that the monthly income of Rs.5,000/- as adopted for the child by the Tribunal is perfectly in order. There is no question of any deduction for personal expenses and hence even if the multiplier adopted is 15, considering the mother’s age of 36, the total compensation for loss of dependency would be Rs.7,50,000/-, Rs.30,000 more than that awarded by the Tribunal. Insofar as the loss of love and affection is concerned, the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi permits only Rs.40,000/- each and funeral expenses as rightly reduced by the High Court has to be Rs.15,000/. We find no rationale for the High Court to have deleted the transportation expenses and loss of dress, ornaments and cycle. As rightly awarded by the High Court, loss of estate has to be compensated with Rs.15000/-. Hence, even if just compensation of Rs.80,000 is fixed as loss of filial consortium as applicable to both the parents and the funeral expenses is reduced to Rs.15,000/-, the total compensation would be Rs.8,70,000/- as below: … 7. However, there is no appeal from the quantum filed by the claimants. Hence the order of the Tribunal is restored and the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the High Court. The claimants shall be paid the amounts as awarded by the Tribunal after deducting the amounts already paid or deposited, within a period of one month from today with interest as directed by the Tribunal or the High Court.” 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and law on this subject, the learned Claims Tribunal has passed the award 9 which is neither bonanza nor on a lower side but it is just and fair compensation, as such, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. 14. Therefore, both the claim appeals filed by the insurance company are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. 15. The interim order passed by this Court on 20.11.2017 is vacated and the Claims Tribunal is directed to complete the execution process expeditiously within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, if it has not been concluded. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish