1 2026:CGHC:1990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 171 of 2020 1 - Tirath Deshmukh S/o Late Khem Lal Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Birejhar, Chowki Anjora , Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanjay Kumar Deshmukh S/o Late Khem Lal Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Birejhar , Chowki Anjora, Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Romendra Kumar Deshmukh S/o Late Khem Lal Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Birejhar, Chowki Anjora , Police Station , Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Balram Tandan S/o Dev Singh Tandan Aged About 30 Years R/o Sikola Basti Ward No. 16, Mohan Nagar , Durg , District Durg Chhattisgarh.(Driver And Owner Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07, B. M. 5871), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager , Branch Office, Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07, B.M. 5871), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None though served. For Respondent No.2 No.2/Insurance : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate along with Mr. Shashank Agrawal and Ms. Prerana Agrawal, Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Company Advocates Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 13/01/2026 1. The claimants have filed this appeal assailing the award passed by the learned II nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the I st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, passed in Claim Case No. 102/2019 dated 04.10.2019, whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,86,044/- with interest @ 7% per annum and fastened liability upon the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 27.10.2018 at around 7.30 p.m., the deceased Khemlal was dashed by the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-7-BM-5871. Resultantly, he sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The claim case was filed by the major sons of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 55 years and he was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. The owner as well as the Insurance Company filed their replies and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company took a specific plea that the rider of the offending motorcycle did not have a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. 3. The learned Tribunal framed issues, the parties led evidence, and thereafter the award was passed. The learned Tribunal recorded a specific finding that the driver-cum-owner of the offending motorcycle did not possess a driving licence on the date of the accident and, thus, the liability was fastened upon respondent No. 1/the owner of the offending vehicle. 3 4. Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, but the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence, therefore, Insurance Company has been exonerated and the liability has been fastened upon the driver-cum-owner of the offending motorcycle. He has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297; Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 9 SCC 650; Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain (2011) 6 SCC 425, & Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited (2019) 7 SCC 217. 5. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award first and thereafter recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 6. Mr. Dhurandhar would also submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. He would contend that according to the minimum wages matrix, the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of October, 2018 were Rs. 8,320/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the compensation. He would further submit that as the age of the deceased was 55 years, the learned Tribunal should have granted compensation towards future prospects. He would pray for enhancement of the compensation accordingly. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the claimants have failed to prove the income of the deceased by leading cogent evidence. He would further submit that the driver of the offending motorcycle had no driving licence; therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly exonerated 4 the Insurance Company; thus, he would pray that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. In the present case, a specific finding has been recorded by the learned Tribunal that the driver-cum-owner of the offending motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence; therefore, the liability was fastened upon the owner-cum-driver of the motorcycle. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swaran Singh (supra), it is held by the Supreme Court as under: “110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third-party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. 5 (iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish “breach” on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act. (vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have t be determined in each case. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner’s licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. (ix) The Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the Tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between the insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes 6 inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with the proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover the amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of the insurer against the insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.” 8. Reiterating the judgment of Swaran Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamanna (supra), held as under: “6. As per the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297, onus is always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was breach of policy 7 conditions. Where the driver did not possess the valid driving licence and there are breach of policy conditions, “pay and recover” can be ordered in case of third-party risks. The Tribunal is required to consider “as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver … does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case”. 7. The Supreme Court considered the decision of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 in subsequent decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700, wherein this Court held that: (SCC p. 705, para 5) “5. The decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 has no application to cases other than third-party risks and in case of third-party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured.” 9. In the matter of Jawahar Singh (supra), it is held by the Supreme Court as follows: “10. On behalf of Respondent 6, National Insurance Company Ltd., it was sought to be urged that at the time of the accident, the motorcycle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, accordingly, the Insurance Company could not be held liable for making payment of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Apart from the fact that Jatin, who was riding the motorcycle, did not have a valid driving licence, it had also been established that he was a minor at the time of the accident and consequently the Insurance Company had been rightly relieved of the liability of payment of compensation to the claimants and such liability had been correctly fixed on the owner of the motorcycle, Jawahar Singh. 11. It has been well settled that if it is not possible for an awardee to recover the compensation awarded against 8 the driver of the vehicle, the liability to make payment of the compensation awarded fell on the owner of the vehicle. It was submitted that in this case since the person riding the motorcycle at the time of accident was a minor, the responsibility for paying the compensation awarded fell on the owner of the motorcycle. In fact, in Ishwar Chandra v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 650, it was held by this Court that in case the driver of the vehicle did not have a licence at all, the liability to make payment of compensation fell on the owner since it was his obligation to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. 12. Before the Tribunal reliance was also placed on the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gh. Mohd. Wani, 2004 ACJ 1424 (J&K) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gadigewwa, 2005 ACJ 40 (Kant), wherein it was held that if the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence, then the Insurance Company after paying the compensation amount would be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It was submitted that no interference was called for with the judgment and order of the High Court impugned in the special leave petition.” 10. In the matter of Parminder Singh (supra), it is held by the Supreme Court as under: “7. On the issue of liability to pay the compensation awarded, we affirm the view taken by the High Court that the respondent Insurance Company is absolved of the liability to bear the compensation, as evidence has been produced from the office of the Regional Transport Office to prove that the drivers of the two offending trucks were driving on the basis of invalid driving licences. It is also relevant to note that the owners and drivers of the offending trucks have not appeared at any stage of the proceedings, including this Court. 7.1 This Court in Shamanna v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 650, held that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving licence, the principle of “pay and recover” can be ordered to direct the insurance company 9 to pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.” 11. In the matter of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu (2022) 1 SCC 317, it is held by the Supreme Court as under: “17. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.4,70,000 (Rupees four lakhs seventy thousand only) towards total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned between the appellants as ordered by the Tribunal. The entire compensation shall be paid to the appellants by Respondent 2 insurance company, and we keep it open to the insurance company to recover the same from Respondent 1 owner of the motorcycle by initiating appropriate proceedings as the motorcycle was driven by the driver who was not possessing valid driving licence on the date of the accident.” 11. In the case at hand, the learned Tribunal has found that the driver of the offending motorcycle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the said motorcycle, constituting a breach of the insurance policy on the part of the owner-cum-driver of the offending motorcycle. 12. The learned Tribunal rightly fastened the liability upon the driver-cum- owner of the offending vehicle; however, the learned Tribunal ought to have directed the insurance company to first pay the compensation to the claimants and thereafter recover the said amount from the driver- cum-owner, as held in the above-referred proposition of law. Accordingly, the first part of the argument advanced by Mr. Dhurandhar is allowed. 13. With regard to the enhancement of the compensation, the award would reveal that learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased 7,000 per month which is at lower side looking to the minimum wages 10 admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of October, 2018 i.e. Rs. 8,320/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that amount for computing the compensation. Further, the learned Tribunal has failed to grant 10 % compensation towards future prospects looking to the age of deceased i.e. 55 years. Accordingly, the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal (A) Compensation awarded by this Court (B) 1. Annual Income ₹7,000 × 12 = ₹84,000 ₹8,320 × 12 = 99,840 ₹ 2. Future Prospects Nil 10% of ₹99,840 = 9,984 ₹ ₹99,840 + 9,984 = ₹ 1,09,824 ₹ 3. Deduction (1/3rd) ₹84,000 − 1/3 = ₹56,004 ₹1,09,824 − 1/3 = 73,216 ₹ 4. Multiplier ₹56,004 × 11 = 6,16,044 ₹ ₹73,216 × 11 = 8,05,376 ₹ 5. Loss of Consortium 70,000 ₹ ₹40,000 × 3 = 1,20,000 ₹ 6. Funeral Expenses 15,000 ₹ 7. Loss of Estate Nil 15,000 ₹ Total ₹6,86,044 (A) 9,55,376 (B) ₹ Final Compensation ₹9,55,376 − 6,86,044 = ₹ ₹2,69,332 2,69,332 ₹ In view of the above calculation, the claimants/appellants shall be entitled to an additional sum of 2,69,332 ₹ . The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation of 2,69,332 ₹ with interest @ 7% per annum to the appellants/claimants within a period of 60 days and recover it from driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. Rest of 11 the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim