1 2025:CGHC:60305 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 445 of 2023 Branch Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Naya Bus Stand, Housing Board Complex, First Floor, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck, Bearing Registration No. C.G.-08-Zc- 0140) ... Appellant versus 1 - Tulsiram Yadav S/o Late Mansharam Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Bakal Ward No. 10, Post Bakal, Police Station Lalbag, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 2 - Dharmu Ram Sahu S/o Kishun Ram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Khallari Dongargarh, Police Station And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Presently Residing At Village Dhaba (Kohka), Outpost Tumdibod, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.- 08-Zc-0140) (Non Applicant No. 2) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.12.12 11:20:21 +0530 2 3 - Girdhari Lal Talreja S/o Late Nandlal Talreja Aged About 55 Years R/o Gali No. 3, Lalbag, Rajnandgaon Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Office/ Shop Nandlal And Sons (Nandlal Hardware), G.E. Road Rajnandgaon Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.-08-Zc-0140) (Non Applicant No. 3) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Satish Surya on behalf of Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocates For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Satyendra Srivas on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocates SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 11.12.2025 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 21/12/2022 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 100/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 8,33,232/- as 3 compensation to the respondent No. 1/claimant for the injuries suffered by him and fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the driving license of respondent No. 2 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle namely Dharmu Ram Sahu had expired and was not valid on the date of the accident i.e. 07/06/2019 and it was renewed later on 26/06/2019, therefore, since the driver of the vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated by the Claims Tribunal and at the best, the Claims Tribunal could have directed the Insurance Company to firstly pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafter, recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others1. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 4 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. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 07/06/2019 and as per the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in paragraph 17 of the impugned award, the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle namely Dharmu Ram sahu (respondent No. 2 herein) was renewed on 26/06/2019 and it is the case of the appellant (Insurance Company) that since the driver did not have valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident, therefore, the Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated. 6. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Swaran Singh (supra) may be noticed herein profitably. Pragraphs 45 and 46 of the judgment state as under :- “45. Thus, a person whose license is ordinarily renewed in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, despite the fact that during the interregnum period, namely, when the accident took place and the date of expiry of the license, he did not have a valid licence, he could during the prescribed period apply for renewal thereof and could obtain the same automatically without undergoing any further test or without having been declared unqualified therefor. Proviso appended to Section 14 in unequivocal terms states that the licence remains valid for a period of thirty days from the date of its expiry. 5 46. Section 15 of the Act does not empower the authorities to reject an application for renewal only on the ground that there is a break in validity or tenure of the driving licence has lapsed, as in the meantime the provisions for disqualification of the driver contained in Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get his driving licence renewed. In that view of the matter, he cannot be said to be delicensed and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry.” 7. In the aforesaid decision, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly laid down that the license remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of its expiry. In the instant case, the Insurance Company have not led any evidence to establish as to the date on which the license of respondent No. 2 expired and even if it is assumed that it expired on the date of the accident i.e. 07/06/2019, yet it has been renewed on 26/06/2019 within the period of 30 days. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra), learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that appellant (Insurance Company) would be liable for payment of compensation to the claimant. I do not find any merit in this appeal. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet