1 2025:CGHC:60370 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 248 of 2025 1 - Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Ward No. 25, Second Floor, In Front Of L.I.C. Building, Simran Tower, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Umaram Nagesh S/o Mosuram Nagesh Aged About 30 Years R/o Chandela, Police Station - Mardum, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 2 - Mahesh Yadav S/o Sonuram Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Chandela, Police Station - Mardum, Tehsil - Lohandiguda, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh (Driver) 3 - Sampat Singh Yadav S/o Sonuram Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chandela, Police Station - Mardum, Tehsil - Lohandiguda, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh (Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/12/2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:- 2 “i. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned award dated 03.03.2025 passed by the Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in MACT Case No. 287/2021 titled as Smt. Janki Maurya & Others vs. Mahesh Yadav Others (Annexure A-1), in so far as Applicant company is concerned, in the interest of justice. ii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that the present Applicant is not liable to pay any amount to the claimants in the instant case, in the interest of justice. iii. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the applicant/injured, Umram Nagesh, filed a claim petition against Non-Applicants No. 01 to 03 under Sections 166(1) and 140(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 11,35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization, for the injuries sustained in a motor accident dated 04.05.2020; it is an admitted fact that the pickup vehicle bearing registration No. CG-19-BE-5619, involved in the accident, was driven by Non- Applicant No. 01 Mahesh Yadav, owned by Non-Applicant No. 02 Sampat Singh Yadav, and insured with Non-Applicant No. 03, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., for the period from 24.05.2019 to 23.05.2020, and thus was validly insured on the date of accident; the applicant pleaded that on 04.05.2020 he 3 was working as a loader (Hamali) in the said vehicle and, after loading Mahua, while returning towards Jagdalpur near Village Chodi Mewada, the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by Non-Applicant No. 01, resulting in the accident; the incident was reported at Police Station Baranji, Jagdalpur, where Crime No. 11/2020 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC, and the applicant was taken to Government Medical College, Dimrapal, Jagdalpur, where he received treatment as an inpatient and thereafter as an outpatient, incurring medical expenses of about Rs. 1,00,000/- with an estimated future expense of Rs. 50,000/-, besides claiming expenses for attendant charges, conveyance from his remote village Mardoom to Jagdalpur, and compensation for mental and physical suffering; it was further pleaded that at the time of the accident the applicant was about 30 years old and earning Rs. 9,000/- per month through labour work, and due to the injuries and disability his earning capacity has been adversely affected; Non-Applicant No. 03 Insurance Company, in its written statement, contended that although the vehicle was insured under Policy No. 3379/02391815/000/00, the policy stood in the name of Sapan Barman while the registered owner on the date of accident was Sampat Singh Yadav, and therefore there was no contractual relationship with the registered owner, absolving the insurer of liability, and further alleged that the applicant was an unauthorised passenger in violation of policy conditions, that the driver did not 4 possess a valid driving licence, and that the vehicle lacked valid permit and other statutory documents, for which reason only Non- Applicants No. 01 and 02 were liable; the learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence and hearing the parties, held that the vehicle was being operated without a valid permit and driving licence in violation of policy conditions and applied the doctrine of “pay and recover”, though it failed to consider that the said principle is not applicable in cases involving unauthorised passengers, and the applicant has annexed the Statutory Deposit Receipt as Annexure A-2 and the certified copy of the order passed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act as Annexure A-3. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal, in so far as it fastens liability upon the present Applicant for payment of compensation, is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has erred both in law and on facts in applying the doctrine of “pay and recover” despite the admitted and proved position that the claimant/injured was travelling in the offending goods vehicle as an unauthorized/gratuitous passenger, in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and that in such cases the Insurance Company cannot be held liable, even on a pay and recover basis. It is further submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle (Non-Applicant No. 01) was not holding a valid 5 and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, which amounts to a fundamental breach of policy conditions, thereby absolving the Insurance Company of all liability. Learned counsel also argues that the case involves a willful breach of policy, as the driver and owner of the vehicle are real brothers, and therefore the owner cannot plead ignorance of the fact that the driver was not duly licensed, making the owner alone liable to satisfy the award. It is further urged that the learned Tribunal has wrongly ignored the specific pleadings and evidence led by the Applicant/Insurance Company showing that the injured was not travelling as a loader/hamali in the course of employment but as an unauthorized passenger, as clearly borne out from the FIR lodged by the brother of deceased Tularam, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure A-4. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the liability of the insurer is purely contractual and cannot be extended beyond the terms of the policy, and has also ignored the well-settled law that the risk of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle is not covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On these grounds, it is submitted that the award deserves to be set aside insofar as it relates to the present Applicant. Learned counsel further submits that no other civil revision has been preferred against the impugned order and reserves the right to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing, with the leave of this Hon’ble Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the 6 material available on record. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and on a careful perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned award warranting interference in appeal. The learned Claims Tribunal has duly appreciated the pleadings and evidence on record and has recorded a reasoned finding regarding the occurrence of the accident, the injuries sustained by the claimant, and the entitlement to compensation. The Tribunal, after noticing the breaches of policy conditions relating to permit and driving licence, has applied the settled principle of “pay and recover” in order to balance the statutory object of providing just compensation to the injured victim while safeguarding the contractual rights of the insurer. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that the claimant was an unauthorised passenger and that the doctrine of pay and recover is wholly inapplicable have been duly considered by the Tribunal and do not persuade this Court to take a different view, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case. No perversity, patent illegality, or misapplication of law is made out in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed, and the impugned award is affirmed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat