1 2025:CGHC:58856 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1250 of 2023 United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Manager, Lic Campus, Ground Floor, Lic Campus, Ground Floor, Lic Building, Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus 1 - Sunita Bai Wd/o Late Pitamber Aged About 37 Years R/o Vill.- Bhendarwani, Kosmarra, P.S. Bakhara, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Bindeswari, D/o Late Pitamber, Aged About 18 Years R/o Vill.- Bhendarwani, Kosmarra, P.S. Bakhara, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Dimple Patel, D/o Late Pitamber, Aged About 11 Years Minor- Through Her Mother Sunita Bai (Res.No. 1) R/o Vill.- Bhendarwani, Kosmarra, P.S. Bakhara, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Shyama Bai Patel, W/o Shri Gaindram Patel, Aged About 58 Years R/o Vill.- Bhendarwani, Kosmarra, P.S. Bakhara, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.12.05 12:38:23 +0530 2 5 - Narayan Dhruvanshi, S/o Shri Balaram Dhruvanshi, R/o Vill.- Bhendarwani, P.S. Bhakhara, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Ghanshyam Sahu, S/o Shri Bisambhar Sahu, R/o Vill.- Bhendarwani, P.S. Bhakhara, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)........(Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 04.12.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 06/05/2023 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 167/2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,86,000/- to the respondent No. 1 to 4/claimants for the death of Pitamber Patel and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that at the time of the accident, driver of the 3 offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 5 herein possessed only learner’s driving license and as such, since the vehicle was being plied in breach of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter, the Rules of 1989), therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated from liability of payment of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants, would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 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. A careful perusal of the record would show that learned Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that though the offending vehicle was being driven by the driver/respondent No. 5 herein while possessing learner’s license (Ex. P/1), but he was accompanied by an instructor who had valid and effective driving license and he was in a position to control the vehicle and moreover, the “L” mark was affixed on the vehicle, as such, it cannot be said that the vehicle was being plied in breach of Rule 3 of the Rules 4 of 1989. In that view of the matter, I do not find any good ground warranting interference in the impugned award. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet