(MAC No.648/2023) 2025:CGHC:56636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 648 of 2023 {Arising out of award dated 9-12-2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod in Claim Case No.197/2021} Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., At – Station Road, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh Policy No.192090/31/2021/642, Duration 31-8-2020 to 30-8-2021, (Insurance Company of Truck No.CG-19/BG-3942) (Non-Applicant No.3) ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Umeshbai Nishad, Wd/o Late Phoolsingh Nishad, aged 45 years 2. Atesh Kumar Nishad, S/o late Phoolsingh Nishad, aged 31 years 3. Mrs. Linky Nishad, D/o late Phoolsingh Nishad, aged 30 years 4. Kumari Divya Nishad, D/o late Phoolsingh Nishad, aged 14 years (minor), Represented through mother & natural guardian Smt. Umeshbai, W/o Late Shri Phoolsingh Nishad, aged 45 years, Note: All the Respondents No.1 to 4 are residents of Revati Navagaon, Police Station/Tehsil/District Balod, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 5. Keertan Kumar Usare, S/o Jaipal Singh Usare, aged 27 years, R/o Gubiagarh, Police Station Khargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Driver of Vehicle Truck Number-CG-19/BG-3942) (Driver) 6. Ramkumar Sinha, S/o Faguram Sinha, Aged 45 years, R/o 15/02, Gaura Chowk, Hetarkasa/(Hatkarra), Kanker, Chhattisgarh (Owner of Vehicle Truck No.CG-19/BG-3942) ... Respondents SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.11.21 16:12:46 +0530 (MAC No.648/2023) For Appellant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents No.5 & 6 : Mrs. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 20/11/2025 1. The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 9-12- 2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod in Claim Case No.197/2021, by which liability to pay compensation to the extent of ₹ 12,27,541/- along with interest @ 9% per annum has been fastened upon the appellant Insurance Company by recording a finding that though the vehicle did have the National Permit, but it has no authorisation under Rule 87(1) & (3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1989’), rather the authorisation was effective and valid only from 10- 10-2017 to 9-10-2018, whereas the accident had taken place on 10-8- 2021, therefore, in absence of authorisation, the offending vehicle was being plied in terms of the breach of policy. 2. Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/Insurance Company, would submit that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company, as looking to the facts and circumstances, in the present case, the Insurance Company is not liable and the principle (MAC No.648/2023) of pay and recover can be applied in light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of K. Nagendra v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others1. 3. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 herein/claimants No.2 & 3, and Mrs. Bhavika Kotecha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.5 & 6 herein – driver & owner of the offending vehicle/truck, respectively, would oppose the appeal and support the impugned award and submit that fundamentally only the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and as such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held the Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation and therefore the appeal of the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. True it is that though the National Permit for the vehicle in question i.e. the offending truck bearing registration No.CG-19/BG-3942 was valid from 10-10-2017 to 9-10-2022, but the authorisation for the said National Permit was effective and valid only from 10-10-2017 to 9-10-2018, however, the accident occurred on 10-8-2021 at 8.30 p.m. in between Villages Chilhatikala and Bharda, Police Station Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 1 2025 INSC 1270 (MAC No.648/2023) 6. At this stage, in order to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provisions contained in Rule 87 of the Rules of 1989, which deals with form, contents and duration of authorisation. Sub-rules (1) & (3) of Rule 87 of the Rules of 1989 provide as under: - “87. Form, contents and duration of authorisation.—(1) An application for the grant of an authorisation for a national permit shall be made in Form 46 and shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees one thousand per annum in the form of a bank draft. (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) The period of validity of an authorisation shall not exceed one year at a time.” 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Binod Kumar Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd.2 has considered the issue and held that the authorisation fee was required to be paid only when the truck was moving out of State of Bihar where the vehicle was registered and the National Permit was granted, as in that case the vehicle was registered in the State of Bihar, and observed as under: - “8. This Court has carefully gone through the permit which is on record and the National Permit is certainly valid up to 13.10.2017. The authorization fee was required to be paid only when the truck was moving out of State of Bihar as it was registered in the State of Bihar and the truck caught fire on account of short-circuit on 08.06.2014 in the State of Bihar itself and, therefore, the respondent company could not have repudiated the claim on such a frivolous ground. The permit in question was issued by the competent authority in Bihar and, therefore, there was no requirement of paying authorization fee when the truck was being used in the State of Bihar and as per the terms and conditions of the National Permit, authorization fee was required to be paid only when the truck was moving out 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 267 (MAC No.648/2023) of State of Bihar. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant was certainly entitled for the insurance claim as held by the State Commission and, therefore, the order passed by the National Commission, dated 19.08.2020, deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The respondent National Insurance Company is directed to process the claim of the appellant and to pay the amount to the appellant within a period of 60 days from today. It is needless to mention that the claim became due in the year 2014 and it was repudiated by the respondent National Insurance Company in the year 2014 itself. The order of the State Commission allowing the claim was passed in the year 2017 which was reversed by the National Commission in the year 2020. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant was not only entitled for the entire claim amount right from the date it became due but he is also entitled for interest from the date of the complaint made before State Commission till the date, the amount is actually paid to him. The appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum and the same with the proposed amount be paid positively within 60 days from today.” 8. Coming to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Binod Kumar Singh (supra), in the instant case, since the vehicle in question was registered in the State of Chhattisgarh, there was no requirement of payment of authorisation fee for the national permit of the said vehicle when it is being plied in the State of Chhattisgarh, however, the authorisation fee was required to be paid only when the truck was moving out of the State of Chhattisgarh. In that view of the matter, the appeal of the Insurance Company deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma